Constitutional Law Commons^™

"Fighting Words" And The First Amendment In Maine: State V. John W., Deborah J. Ross

Maine Law Review

On April 1, 1979, John W. was driving his car, accompanied by his sister Maria. The car was stopped by a police officer who requested John's license and registration. Maria asked the officer why they had been stopped. When the officer remained silent, Maria became abusive and was arrested for disorderly conduct. John demanded to know what was going on. Ordered to get back into his car, John began shouting at the police: "Hey, turn around and come back here;" "Hey, you fucking pig, you fuckin' kangaroo;" "Fuck you." John was arrested and convicted in a juvenile proceeding of disorderly …

The Constitutional Law Of Defamation—Recent Developments And Suggested State Court Responses, Susan Gail Shorey

Maine Law Review

Prior to the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, defamation law in the United States was controlled by common law principles developed in the state courts. In New York Times the United States Supreme Court staked out an area of first amendment privilege, which limited the states' power to permit recovery in defamation actions brought by public officials. Later extensions of this constitutional privilege made it appear for a time that constitutional requirements would produce a unified nation-wide body of defamation law to replace the various common law rules followed in the fifty states. In view of …

The Development And Consequences Of The "Good Faith" Exception To The Exclusionary Rule And The Qualified "Good Faith" Immunity From Liability Under Section 1983, Philip M. Coffin Iii, Paul F. Driscoll

Maine Law Review

The remedies fashioned to redress violations of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution continue to be the subject of much judicial, legislative, and scholarly inquiry. In striking the balance between the need to protect individual freedom and the need to protect society from criminal activity, the Supreme Court and Congress have developed two principal remedies for fourth amendment violations: the exclusionary rule and civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under theories of constitutional tort. on the development of both of these remedies it is assumed that their effectiveness is the true measure of fourth amendment liberties. …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

New York's Constitutional Guarantee Of Environmental Rights, Katrina Fischer Kuh, Nicholas A. Robinson, Scott Fein

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

New York is embarking on the interpretation and implementation of potentially transformative constitutional reform, the addition of Article I, § 19 to New York’s Bill of Rights, which provides that “Each person shall have the right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” To ensure the fulsome and effective implementation of Article I, § 19, and give effect to the intent of the legislators and voters who adopted it, it will be important to provide substantive guidance to courts, government actors, and litigants in the interpretation and application of the new constitutional text. In Pennsylvania and other states, …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

Trump V. United States And The Half-Originalist Presidency, Christine Kexel Chabot

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States has been criticized for its ahistorical approach to presidential immunity. This Essay offers the first account of the historical mismatch between the Trump Court’s decision to immunize presidential removal power and Founding era conceptions of the presidency. Unlike the presumptive immunity that the Court recognized for most other official presidential acts, the immunity afforded for presidential removal power is absolute. The Court ruled that the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” can never be regulated by Congress or considered as evidence of wrongdoing, even when the President threatens removal to effectuate …

The Misuse Of Ratification-Era Sources By Unitary Executive Theorists, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This symposium essay suggests that, given an ostensibly originalist Supreme Court, the future depends on getting the past right. The unitary executive theory is approaching its political and doctrinal zenith in 2025, at the very moment it is approaching an evidentiary crisis. This essay details that crisis: a subset of misuses and misrepresentations of sources in the unitary executive scholarship. This subset focuses on serious misrepresentations of the Ratifications debates.

The Ratification debates appropriately have become the primary source of evidence for original public meaning, the dominant theory of originalism. The Ratification debates have always been a significant problem for …

Antiquated Practices In Mississippi That Are Impeding The Right To Vote, Amanda Noel

SLU Law Journal Online

Mississippi is historically one of the most difficult states to cast a vote, especially for marginalized groups. Despite voting becoming more accessible throughout the United States, recently, Mississippi courts and legislature have sought to reverse years of progress by denying those convicted of felonies the right to vote upon reform and by making it a crime to assist others in casting absentee and mail-in ballots. In this paper, Amanda Noel discusses the implications of Mississippi’s attempts at disenfranchisement and proposes feasible solutions to aid those in accessing their fundamental right to vote.

What’S Past Is Prologue: The Effects Of Shelby County V. Holder In Georgia, Jane Delworth

SLU Law Journal Online

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Section 4 and, by extension, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, created a clear path for discriminatory voting laws to take hold. This article explores how the Supreme Court decision paved the way for second-generation barriers to voting, which legally diminish the influence of minority voters and in some cases, effectively block their participation altogether. It also examines Georgia’s role as a key state advancing these second-generation barriers to voting, alongside proposed legislation aimed at preventing these discriminatory practices before they can impact voters.

Amendment 7 Ballot Candy And The Single Subject Rule: How The Legislative Supermajority Amended The State Constitution To Limit Voter Choice, Joshua A. Jones

SLU Law Journal Online

During the most recent general election, Missouri voters passed Amendment 7, a legislative ballot measure which erected bulwarks around an election process that limits voter choice. This article will discuss some of Missouri’s constitutional protections against deceptive ballot provision packages, specifically the single subject rule, as well as why they necessarily fall short of total efficacy. It does not argue for a more stringent application of the rules, because doing so would have implications for one of Missourians’ most powerful tools of direct democracy. The paper will examine Amendment 7 for its use of “ballot candy” that legislators successfully dangled …

Editor-In-Chief’S Foreword, Megan Stupi

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Generative Privacy Doctrine: The Case For A New Legal Privacy Framework For Gen^Ai, Karina Devi Etminani

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

From quills to queries, from secrets once scrawled in private to personal prompts on glowing screens, debates over privacy rights endure. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) further confounds by conflating confession with code, and intimate thoughts with algorithms. Although technologists have predicted AI’s ascent before, and have critically assessed privacy rights for decades, the unprecedented engagement with GenAI following OpenAI’s public launch of ChatGPT marks a distinct moment— one where a generation of rights holders actively builds and converses with emerging platforms while the law strains to keep pace.

Existing privacy doctrines are ill-prepared for GenAI’s dynamic data processing and its …

Historical Firearm Licensing And Permitting Laws, Robert J. Spitzer

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Gives States The Green Light To Go Ham: The Dormant Commerce Clause In Renewable Energy In Light Of National Pork Producers, Ellie Carl

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Two years ago, the Supreme Court slaughtered the Dormant Commerce Clause in its decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross. While the case is not explicitly about environmental law, it significantly affects environmental laws and policies, especially pertaining to state renewable portfolio standards. These state policies are especially prone to Dormant Commerce Clause litigation, given the interstate nature of electric grids. This paper argues that the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause in light of this decision is appropriate for ensuring that states have adequate wiggle room in renewable energy regulation, but not an excessive amount of leeway so …

Data Privacy At The Border: How To Balance National Security Concerns And Privacy Interests When Conducting Forensic Border Searches Of Electronic Devices, Eleni Filley

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Do you know where your phone is? Can you describe the last five pictures in your camera roll? How many websites have you visited this month? Cell phones are an extension of our person and contain some of our most private data: location, banking, loved ones, sleep statistics, reproductive information, and more. As our technology develops, so too should our laws. This Note explores the lack of privacy protections at the U.S. border and how susceptible our data is to a government search. A Supreme Court ruling recognizing the unique piece of property a cell phone represents, even at a …

James Baldwin And What U.S. Governments Owe Every American, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This book review looks at the life, work and impact of James Baldwin, a famous writer and civil rights activist that was born one hundred (100) years ago. It does so, for one of the first times in the field of law, by examining Baldwin’s influence on the legal system. The book review carries out its work by identifying Baldwin’s impacts upon U.S. law: before, during and after his public service career. In the process, this book review describes how governments can build on Baldwin's writings and advocacy work.

Hate Groups And The Charitable Tax Exemption, Miriam Galston

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

The Misapplication Of Legal Standards In Fischer: Analyzing The True Intent Of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(C), Jeremiah Baltimore

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

Fischer stems from the events of Jan 6, ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. This comment critiques the decision as flawed on both textual and policy grounds.

Anti-Abortion Law Or Illegal Human Life Support Conscription?, Jennifer Ann Drobac

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

This Article introduces the idea that forced fetal life support in a state that bans abortion is unpaid state-conscripted human life support (“USCHLS”) by the hosts. It reviews how the Dobbs decision resulted in USCHLS, unpaid work, which violates the U.S. Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment protection against “involuntary servitude.” Additionally, USCHLS constitutes a per se taking which violates the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment. This Article suggests sexual activity insurance might alleviate some of the problems with USCHLS, but not all of them.

To date, no U.S. federal or state government offers the G.I. bill, a state equivalent, or service …

Originalism’S Stare Decisis Problem: The Place Of Precedent In Theories Of Interpretation, Arjan S. Heir

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Originalism is a prevalent approach to legal interpretation, and stare decisis is a prevalent legal doctrine. Yet, the two do not happily coexist. This article explores the role that stare decisis plays in originalism and living constitutionalism, with a focus on the doctrine’s impact on each theory’s integrity in both academic and lay circles.

Originalism runs into trouble on two levels. First, it is self-defeating in theoretical terms, as it treats stare decisis as a “pragmatic exception” to an interpretive theory premised on excluding policy considerations from legal analysis. Second, it undermines judicial legitimacy by failing to provide the public …

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part: The Constitutionality Of Firearm Waiting Periods, F. Lee Francis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article examines the constitutionality of firearm waiting period laws through the lens of the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. Although such laws are frequently defended as prudent public safety measures, their validity turns not on legislative purpose but on constitutional principle, particularly as framed in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Under those decisions, the scope of the Second Amendment is determined not by judicial balancing of contemporary interests, but by reference to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Article surveys that tradition and finds no …

When Rights Require Permission: The Discriminatory History Of Licensing Laws For Firearm Possession, Bob Barr, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

The Wrongly Read Right: Insurrection And The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms, Aman Mcleod, Jacob M. Jones

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Several judges and scholars have interpreted the Second Amendment as creating a right to bear arms to facilitate armed resistance against the government whenever it threatens to impose tyranny. These arguments have been made in books, scholarly articles, and court decisions. Many of the proponents of the pro-armed insurrection interpretation of the Second Amendment root this point of view in the history of the right to bear arms in the Anglo-American legal tradition. This Article argues that the Second Amendment does not create a right to bear arms to resist government authority because such a right is inconsistent with several …

Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing The Right To Counsel For Indigent Parents In Juvenile Dependency Proceedings, Jake Toth

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Fairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.

This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines …

Big Business As Gun Control, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary, Bhav Ninder Singh

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Gun control increasingly bypasses direct legislative enactments by co-opting the commercial marketplace. Financial institutions and insurers often face regulatory pressures, frequently articulated through vague notions of “reputational risk,” to terminate or restrict services for lawful firearms businesses and advocacy groups. The debanking tactic, seen in initiatives such as Operation Choke Point, can deny essential financial products to firearm owners, merchants, and organizations, curtailing the practical exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Simultaneously, government agencies sometimes pursue warrantless data collection from bank records and merchant category codes, building profiles of lawful purchasers and eroding privacy and due-process norms.

Social media platforms compound …

Dangerous And Unusual: How Heller’S Ahistorical Assumption Violates The Founders’ Original Intent, Oliver Krawczyk, Gilbert Ambler

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

When the U.S. Supreme Court ended its generational silence on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that “a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” is “invalid.” In so holding, the Court suggested that the Constitution protects only those weapons “in common use at the time,” a limitation thought to be “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” The Court defined none of these terms then, and it has not since.

Over a decade of constitutional infidelity ensued. …

Her Fundamentals: Justice Abella And Section 2(B) Of The Charter, Jamie Cameron

Articles & Book Chapters

Justice Abella’s legendary aspirations for human rights all but defined her jurisprudence, and under s,2 she earned praise elsewhere for her opinions on religious freedom (s.2(a) of the Charter) and the right to strike under s.2(d)’s guarantee of associational freedom. Apart from Doré v. Barreau de Québec, her s.2(b) jurisprudence on freedom of expression has attracted less scholarly attention. This article highlights Justice Abella’s leadership under s.2(b) in protecting expressive freedom’s democratic values, developing a more robust form of proportionality balancing under s.1, and advocating for doctrinal recognition of freedom of the press and media as an independent …

Just To Be Safe, Let’S Keep Ignoring What “Arms” Meant In 1791, Jack Thorlin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that “arms,” referred to in the Second Amendment, are common weapons useful for lawful purposes. The majority argued that militiamen fought with whatever common weapons they had on hand for civilian purposes, such as self-defense and hunting. Therefore, under Heller, only those weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. However, Heller did little to ground the “self-defense” theory of “arms” in original public meaning or even actual history. Commonality and lawful purpose have proved difficult for lower …

Unfinished Liberties, Inevitable Balancing, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

In constitutional liberties cases, the Supreme Court has tried to reduce balancing, understood loosely to mean determining a right’s contours based on sweeping political-moral considerations, not just text and history. It fears that today’s balancing would displace a balance struck by the Founders. Balancing is indeed problematic—but this campaign to end it is bound to fail. Though avoidable for many constitutional rights, balancing is inevitable for general liberties like religion, the Second Amendment, and speech. This inevitability arises not from gaps in text or history but from these liberties’ special role.

General liberties are irreducibly open-ended—not reducible …