Constitutional Law Commons^™

Constitutional Privileging, Michael Coenen

Journal Articles

“Constitutional privileging” occurs when courts treat the constitutional status of a legal claim as a reason to afford it specialized procedural or remedial treatment — in effect providing to that claim a greater degree of judicial care and attention than its nonconstitutional counterparts receive. Though seldom scrutinized by courts and commentators, this practice occurs within a variety of doctrinal settings. For example, a stricter standard of harmless error review governs constitutional claims; district court findings of facts (and mixed findings) are subject to a stricter form of appellate review in constitutional cases; collateral relief from federal court judgments is more …

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.

Pennsylvania’S Supreme Court, Still Broken, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals

Introduction: Persecution Through Prosecution: Revisiting Touro Law Center’S Conference In Paris On The Dreyfus Affair And The Leo Frank Trial, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

This piece provides the introduction for the Dreyfus affair. It gives a brief overview of the actual Dreyfus affair and outlines the articles in this volume.

Saving The First Amendment From Itself: Relief From The Sherman Act Against The Rabbinic Cartels, Barak D. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

America’s rabbis currently structure their employment market with rules that flagrantly violate the Sherman Act. The consequences of these rules, in addition to the predictable economic outcomes of inflated wages for rabbis and restricted consumer freedoms for the congregations that employ them, meaningfully hinder Jewish communities from seeking their preferred spiritual leader. Although the First Amendment cannot combat against this privately-orchestrated (yet paradigmatic) restriction on religious expression, the Sherman Act can. Ironically, however, the rabbinic organizations implementing the restrictive policies claim that the First Amendment immunizes them from Sherman Act scrutiny, thereby claiming the First Amendment empowers them to do …

Reverse-Commandeering, Margaret Hu

Faculty Scholarship

Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between two sovereigns. Thus, the reversibility of the anti-commandeering doctrine appears inherent in the reasoning offered by the Court for the doctrine’s creation and application. In this Article, I contend that reversing the anti-commandeering doctrine is appropriate in the context of contemporary immigration federalism laws. Specifically, I explore how an unconstitutional incursion into federal sovereignty can be seen in state immigration …

Brief Of Federalism Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent Windsor, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mapping A Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay was written for the Yale Law Journal Online Symposium on the future of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County v. Holder. Professors Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer argue that voting rights activists ought to be prepared for a future in which section 5 is not part of the landscape. If the Court strikes down section 5, an emerging ecosystem of private entities and organized interest groups of various stripes—what they call institutional intermediaries—may be willing and able to mimic the elements that made section 5 an effective regulatory device. As voting rights …

Firearm Localism, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Second Amendment doctrine is largely becoming a line-drawing exercise, as courts try to determine which “Arms” are constitutionally protected, which “people” are permitted to keep and bear them, and in which ways those arms and people can be regulated. But the developing legal regime has yet to account for one potentially significant set of lines: the city limits themselves. In rural areas, gun crime and gun control are relatively rare, and gun culture is strong. In cities, by contrast, rates of violent gun crime are comparatively high, and opportunities for recreational gun use are scarce. And from colonial Boston to …

Access To Government Information Is A Foundation Of American Democracy—But The Courts Don't Get It, Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr.

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Charter's Influence Around The World, Mark Tushnet

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Over the past several decades, the influence of the United States Constitution and Supreme Court around the world has waned while that of the Canadian Charter and Supreme Court has increased. This article examines several reasons for these changes, including: the relative ages of the constitutions; the US Supreme Court’s recent conservatism; the Canadian Supreme Court’s role in developing the doctrine of proportionality; the US Supreme Court’s interest in originalism; differing structures of constitutional review and judicial supremacy; and the two Courts’ relative openness to transnational influences.

Analogies And Institutions In The First And Second Amendments: A Response To Professor Magarian, Darrell A.H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, Professor Darrell Miller responds to Professor Gregory Magarian's criticism of the manner in which judges, advocates, and scholars have used the First Amendment to frame Second Amendment interpretive questions.

Limitations On Government: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Of American And Iraqi Efforts To Preserve Liberty And To Protect Against Arbitrariness, Hemin Ibrahim Qadir

Law Student Scholarship

This dissertation is a comparative study in constitutionalism, the historical process of limiting government powers to enable the people to be well served and protected in important aspects of their human dignity. The two constitutional systems explored here are those of the United States and Iraq.

People have to be guaranteed protection and the Constitution must restrict the government from being too powerful to enact whatever laws or acts they want. The United States of America passed through many stages from the colonial period until present day to limit government powers, to protect human rights, fundamental rights, natural rights, and …

Allocating The Costs Of Parental Free Exercise: Striking A New Balance Between Sincere Religious Belief And A Child's Right To Medical Treatment , Paul A. Monopoli

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Line-Item Veto: The Best Response When Congress Passes One Spending “Bill” A Year, L. Gordon Crovitz

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Montesquieu's Theory Of Government And The Framing Of The American Constitution , Matthew P. Bergman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Policy Against Federal Funding For Abortions Extends Into The Realm Of Free Speech After Rust V. Sullivan, Loye M. Barton

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California's Constitutional Right To Privacy, J. Clark Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Alvarez-Machain: Kidnapping In The "War On Drugs" - A Matter Of Executive Discretion Or Lawlessness?, Michael G. Mckinnon

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Walking The Invisible Line Of Punitive Damages: Txo Production Corp. V. Alliance Resources Corp. , Nancy G. Dragutsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Split-Recovery: A Constitutional Answer To The Punitive Damage Dilemma, Clay R. Stevens

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

"A Land Of Strangers": Communitarianism And The Rejuvenation Of Intermediate Associations, Derek E. Brown

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Question Or Judicial Query: An Examination Of The Modern Doctrine And Its Inapplicability To Human Rights Mass Tort Litigation, Nancy S. Williams

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Homosexuals, Equal Protection, And The Guarantee Of Fundamental Rights In The New Decade: An Optimist’S Quasi-Suspect View Of Recent Events And Their Impact On Heightened Scrutiny For Sexual Orientation-Based Discrimination, John Nicodemo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Satellites And Municipalities: One Town’S Use Of Google Earth For Residential Surveillance, Edward Knoedler

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Bin Laden Exception, Erik Luna

Scholarly Articles

Osama bin Laden's demise provides an opportune moment to reevaluate the extraordinary measures taken by the U.S. government in the "war on terror," with any reassessment incorporating the threat posed by al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Some modest analysis suggests that terrorism remains a miniscule risk for the average American, and it hardly poses an existential threat to the United States. Nonetheless, terrorism-related fears have distorted the people's risk perception and facilitated dubious public policies, exemplified here by a series of programs implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Among other things, this agency has adopted costly technology and …

Of Speech And Sanctions: Toward A Penalty-Sensitive Approach To The First Amendment, Michael Coenen

Journal Articles

Courts confronting First Amendment claims do not often scrutinize the severity of a speaker’s punishment. Embracing a “penalty-neutral” understanding of the free-speech right, these courts tend to treat an individual’s expression as either protected, in which case the government may not punish it at all, or unprotected, in which case the government may punish it to a very great degree. There is, however, a small but important body of “penalty-sensitive” case law that runs counter to the penalty-neutral norm. Within this case law, the severity of a speaker’s punishment affects the merits of her First Amendment claim, thus giving rise …

The American Historical Review (April 2012) (Reviewing David Garland, Peculiar Institution: America’S Death Penalty In An Age Of Abolition, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.