Constitutional Law Commons^™

The State Of Our Republic: State Constitutions’ Role In Creating A More Perfect Union, Caroline Bullock

CMC Senior Theses

This thesis situates state constitutionalism in the modern context of federal constitutional paralysis. By tracing patterns of state constitutional development, we find that states were always the fundamental setting of democracy, and there has always been critical action happening at state legislatures, in state courts, and through state constitutional change. State constitutions provide an active means to achieve progress and protect rights not federally enshrined (and thus, endangered by the political process). The use of state constitutions to prescribe ways of life, protect individual and specialized rights, and to limit local governments has always occurred, but with the current federal …

The Fallout Of Sffa V. Harvard And The Future Of Affirmative Action, Agosto Aliaga

CMC Senior Theses

When the Supreme Court ruled race-conscious admissions to be unconstitutional in SFFA v. Harvard, it sent the higher education world into shock. About 200 universities across the nation who featured admissions systems selective enough to where a student’s race impacted their admission probability were forced to restructure their admissions. As media outlets reports on the decision dominated the headlines, the man responsible for the Students for Fair Admissions’ victory, Edward Blum, quietly shifted his attention to his next target, the business world. Blum, a professional plaintiff with the goal of ridding America of race-conscious policies, understands better than anyone that …

For Richer Or Poorer: The Warren Court's Relationship To Socioeconomic Class, Nicole Jonassen

CMC Senior Theses

The U.S. Constitution does not enshrine socioeconomic rights. Why does this matter? Many argue that socioeconomic rights have value in and of themselves because they secure certain minimum conditions of human dignity, but socioeconomic rights also have instrumental value because abject material deprivation often makes traditional political and civil rights meaningless. In this thesis, I explore the relationship between U.S. constitutional law and socioeconomic rights through an analysis of the Warren Court’s decisions regarding socioeconomic class. In Chapter 1, I present existing literature on socioeconomic rights, socioeconomic rights in the American context, and what many scholars see as the Warren …

Does The Constitution Follow The Flag? The Paradox Of Puerto Rican Identity And Citizenship, Laura Somoza Velez

CMC Senior Theses

How do identity and citizenship interact? Puerto Rico’s current political status is that of an unincorporated, organized territory of the United States, under the shiny title of ‘Commonwealth.’ Although they have US Citizenship, Puerto Rican residents aren’t protected by the US Constitution. This source of dual identification, American and Puerto Rican, creates a unique circumstance where questions of identity, and belonging naturally arise. In this thesis, I aim to answer how the citizenship condition created in Puerto Rico and how it is experienced measure up to current debates and scholarship surrounding citizenship. Achieved through a historical analysis of the formation …

From The Barrel To The Border: Exploring The Roots And Ramifications Of Gun Trafficking From The United States To Mexico, Alexandra Punishill

CMC Senior Theses

Nowhere is the discussion surrounding gun violence more prominent than in the United States, with the impacts of our gun-friendly culture being felt around the world. This thesis analyzes the dynamics of gun trafficking from the United States to Mexico and sheds light on its role in fueling the epidemic of gun violence south of the border. It is argued that the particular system of federalism adopted by the United States has led to a variety of state-level gun regulations that have shaped domestic gun policy and have had an international impact. Despite Mexico’s persistent efforts to combat the gun …

Righteous Fury: A Natural Rights Approach To The Individual Right To Bear Arms Under The Ninth And Fourteenth Amendments, Nikhil Agarwal

CMC Senior Theses

The individual right to bear arms for self-defence has been grounded by the modern Supreme Court in the Second Amendment and incorporated against the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a close examination of both the majority and dissenting opinions in each of the three landmark gun-rights cases decided by the Supreme Court this century- DC v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen- reveal how difficult is to determine the original meaning of the Second Amendment, and expose weaknesses in the Court’s current substantive due process …

Justice William J. Brennan Jr.'S Teleological Jurisprudence And What It Means For Constitutional Interpretation Today, Susan D. Carle

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Observers commonly think of the Warren and Roberts Courts as polar opposites in their modes of constitutional interpretation. But how different are their approaches really? To be sure, the values that underlie the jurisprudence of the Warren and Roberts Courts are dramatically different, but their methodologies for constitutional adjudication are similar in a crucial respect: both Courts frequently employ a teleological approach. They look, in other words, to ends outside of the law to determine the direction in which constitutional law should be heading.

To prove this point, this Article examines the methods and values Justice William J. Brennan Jr. …

Against Gap-Filling, Noah C. Chauvin

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Legal scholars delight in gap-filling. They frequently claim that their works have identified a gap in the literature and to have filled (or begun filling) that gap. However, all too often, these same papers fail to explain why the gap needed to be filled at all. Indeed, despite a robust tradition of meta-scholarship, the legal literature is largely devoid of a theory of academic gap-filling. This essay fills that gap, arguing that gap-filling for the sake of gap-filling is an error for three interconnected reasons. First, gaps might exist for a good reason. Second, concern with gap-filling is often a …

Uncommon Carriage, Blake Reid

Publications

As states have begun regulating the carriage of speech by “Big Tech” internet platforms, scholars, advocates, and policymakers have increasingly focused their attention on the law of common carriage. Legislators have invoked common carriage to defend social media regulations against First Amendment challenges, making arguments set to take center stage in the Supreme Court’s impending consideration of the NetChoice saga.

This Article challenges the coherence of common carriage as a field and its utility for assessing the constitutionality and policy wisdom of internet regulation. Evaluating the post-Civil War history of common carriage regimes in telecommunications law, this Article illustrates that …

The Transmogrification Of Moratoria In Support Of Rent Regulations: False Steps To Affordable Housing, Shelby D. Green

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The real challenge in property law is demarcating its contours. In this Article, I explore current challenges to our conception of property and the courts' specification or retraction of long-recognized limits on government interference for larger societal benefits. I am largely prompted by recent rulings in state and federal courts on moratoria on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing burdens of rent regulation in a world of persistent housing shortages. In Part II, I discuss property law theories as a backdrop to the discussion of political limits, with a brief summary of how the concepts have evolved over …

Liberty On Hold: The Constitutional Test And Source For Overdetention Claims, Sarya Baladi

Fordham Law Review

The persistence of overdetention—meaning continued detention after officers knew or should have known that the arrested person was entitled to release—poses major concerns about both the fundamental right against arbitrary detention and other unenumerated constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Baker v. McCollan established a vague constitutional protection against overdetention, but it left lower courts to answer many open questions about its parameters.

Although courts agree that the Constitution prohibits law enforcement from arbitrarily detaining indefinitely an arrested person who protests their legitimate release, the application of this protection has been inconsistent across federal courts of appeals. …

Turning A Blind Eye To “Prisoner-On-Prisoner” Brawls: Why Failure-To-Protect Claims Should Proceed Under Bivens, Sophia M. Brusco

Fordham Law Review

Correctional officers have an obligation, under the Eighth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 4042, to protect incarcerated persons from an attack at the hands of fellow incarcerated individuals. Despite this duty, when a federal officer fails to protect an incarcerated person from attack, the viability of the victim’s claim against the offending officer is uncertain. Even though the doctrine, created in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, allows courts to infer a cause of action for damages directly from the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a test in Ziglar v. Abbasi that has …

Narrow But Deep: The Mcculloch Principle, Collective-Action Theory, And Section Three Enforcement, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In Trump v. Anderson, 144 S. Ct. 662 (2024), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in excluding President Donald J. Trump from the Republican Party's primary ballot in the state.  The Court reasoned that the Constitution makes Congress, not the states, solely responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Scholars of Section 3 have demonstrated that Section 3 is self-executing, so the Court's rationale lacks a sound basis in the original or contemporary meaning of the text of the Civil War Amendments, the original intent of their drafters, or …

Preambles Before The Preamble: Rediscovering The Preamble’S Role In Constitutional Interpretation, Stuart Ford

Brooklyn Law Review

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms …

Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, And Major Questions: A Novel Framework For Judicial Deference To Agency Legal Interpretations, Charles A. Bower

Brooklyn Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is a watershed moment for administrative law. For the first time, the Court explicitly invoked the Major Questions Doctrine by name in a majority opinion. The usage of the Major Questions Doctrine is important on its own, but equally important is the fact that the longstanding Chevron doctrine played no part in the majority’s analysis. The absence of Chevron doctrine in West Virginia in favor of the Major Questions Doctrine continues a trend where the Court has been relying on Chevron less often. The threats the Chevron faces do not appear …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, And Confounded, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

As explicated by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, and reaffirmed in Biden v. Nebraska in 2023, the “major questions doctrine” provides that an administrative agency’s rule in a “major” case must rest on “clear congressional authorization.” Many commentators have deplored the major questions doctrine on the basis of its policy consequences. This Article offers a critique of the doctrine from a different angle. It primarily contends that the reasons the Court has given for enforcing the doctrine do not withstand scrutiny, even on their own terms.

In West Virginia and Nebraska, the Court relied heavily …

Revocation At The Founding, Jacob Schuman

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court is divided over the constitutional law of community supervision. The justices disagree about the nature of a defendant’s liberty under supervision, the rights that apply when the government punishes violations, and the relationship between parole, probation, and supervised release. These divisions came to a head in 2019’s United States v. Haymond, where the justices split 4–1–4 on whether the right to a jury trial applies to revocation of supervised release. Their opinions focused on the original understanding of the jury right at the time the Constitution was ratified.

This Article aims to settle the debate over …

Movement For Quality Government V. Knesset, Esther Hayut, Yael Willner, Alex Stein, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, Yechiel Meir Kasher, Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz, Yosef Elron, Isaac Amit, Ruth Ronnen, Uzi Vogelman, Khaled Kabub, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Daphne Barak-Erez

Translated Opinions

Movement for Quality Government v. Knesset concerned challenges to Amendment No. 3 to Basic Law: The Judiciary (the “reasonableness amendment”). In view of the controversy surrounding the amendment and the fundamental constitutional question it raised in regard to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review Basic Laws, the Court took the unprecedented step of sitting en banc. A translation of the official abstract issued by the Court appears here.

On January 1, 2024, a majority of the Court (12 of 15 justices) held that the Court held the authority to conduct judicial review of Basic Laws and to intervene in …

Movement For Quality Government In Israel V. The Knesset, Esther Hayut, Yael Willner, Alex Stein, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, Yechiel Meir Kasher, Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz, Yosef Elron, Isaac Amit, Ruth Ronnen, Uzi Vogelman, Khaled Kabub, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Daphne Barak-Erez

Translated Opinions

Movement for Quality Government v. Knesset concerns challenges to Amendment No. 3 to Basic Law: The Judiciary (the “reasonableness amendment”). In view of the controversy surrounding the amendment and the fundamental constitutional question it raised in regard to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review Basic Laws, the Court took the unprecedented step of sitting en banc. We translate here Chief Justice Hayut's majority opinion.

On January 1, 2024, a majority of the Court (12 of 15 justices) held that the Court held the authority to conduct judicial review of Basic Laws and to intervene in exceptional, extreme cases in …

The Warrant Impact Study: Evaluating The Effects Of Bench Warrants On Individuals And Communities, Patrick C. Brayer

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Consent Searches As Police Violence, David B. Owens

Articles

Henderson and Krishnamurthi’s new paper—A Wolf in Sheep’s Attire: How Consent Enfeebles Our Fourth Amendment (hereinafter Sheep’s Attire)— powerfully advocates for reform to the consent doctrine. The paper is thoughtful, well-intentioned, and useful for challenging core assumptions about the law to help us evaluate how it should work. The piece is also fun to read as the authors breathe real-world insight into old doctrine. In the end, though the article flirts with a categorical rule about consent searches, and while the authors “think it categorically unreasonable for police to ask individuals to forgo their rights” in the context …

The Consequences Of Mythology: Supreme Court Decisionmaking In Indian Country, M. Alexander Pearl

Faculty Articles

Ilanoli isht unowa. We tell our own stories. A single historical event has many stories. Although this nation's official chronicle expected and even hoped for Indigenous peoples to fade away, we are still here. Our histories are marked by resistance, survival, sovereignty, and renaissance. Only now, in the later stages of the American experiment, do our histories have the chance to matter in new forms and spaces. How much these stories matter within contemporary contexts depends upon where they are spoken and more importantly, who is listening. On the pages of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, what stories are told …

Popular Constitutionalism Inside The Courts: The Search For Popular Meaning, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

While commentators celebrate (or lament) the rise of originalism on the Roberts Court, another theory may prove as important to the future of constitutional law: popular constitutionalism. In a range of recent cases, Justices from across the ideological spectrum have proven themselves open to using sources of popular authority to address important constitutional issues. This is especially true of the two Justices at the Roberts Court’s ideological center: John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. Even so, the question remains how best to make popular constitutionalism work inside the courts. This question has vexed popular constitutionalists since the theory’s inception. In my …

Protecting Minority Representation In An Era Of Political Polarization And The Hollowing Out Of Voting Rights Protections, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court has hollowed out various voting rights protections, leaving all voters—minority and nonminority—less protected in a politically polarized America. Surprisingly, the Court has continued to protect representation for minority race voters who live in racially polarized areas. However, minority race voters risk losing that protection, typically provided through majority-minority districts authorized under the Voting Rights Act, if they build cross-racial coalitions with their neighbors. Under the Court’s interpretation of the VRA, cross-racial voting coalitions may be less protected than local majorities comprised of a single race of voters. The loss of such protection could leave their …

The Constitutional Court Of Kosovo In Comparative Perspective, Christie S. Warren

Faculty Publications

...presented at the Solemn Ceremony of the 14th Judicial Year of the Constitutional Court, held on 23 October 2023 in Prishtina and on the occasion of the International Conference “Contribution of Constitutional Courts in the protection and strengthening of the fundamental values of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental human rights and freedoms”, organized on 24 October 2023 in Prishtina.

Second Amendment Immigration Exceptionalism, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

This Essay critiques the decision to uphold federal gun restrictions on unlawfully present noncitizens on the basis of "immigration exceptionalism." It argues that courts should avoid applying bespoke constitutionalism to criminal laws, including gun laws, simply because the law regulates noncitizens. This Essay shows why such exceptional modes misapprehend long-decided Supreme Court cases and well-established legal doctrine. Further, it warns that an exceptional approach to Second Amendment claims by unlawfully present noncitizens cannot be cabined to either firearms or the unlawfully present. Rather, it portends a wider gulf in constitutional protections for all noncitizens across a variety of fundamental criminal …

A Qualitative Analysis Of Section 1983 Filings By Incarcerated Plaintiffs, Hollie Macdonald

Theses and Dissertations

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was a “watershed moment" in human history, transcending its role as a mere health crisis to reveal deeper fissures within societies. The present retrospective longitudinal study examined COVID-19 as an “era” of complexity utilizing it as an intermediate construct that delineates “pre-COVID” and “post-COVID.” In order to understand the impact of the COVID-19 era, the design of the study and hypotheses stem from an assumption of the interconnectedness of issues related to health, social justice, racial justice, politics, and information dissemination.

This study utilized both manifest and latent content analysis to explore the most …

Standing Without Injury, Jonathan Adler

Faculty Publications

This Article seeks to assess Judge Newsom’s proposed injury-less approach to standing in federal court. Part I of this Article provides a brief overview of current standing doctrine, the requirements of standing consolidated in Lujan, and how these requirements have been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court. Part II describes Judge Newsom’s critique of contemporary standing doctrine and outlines the two primary components of his proposed alternative: 1) elimination of the standing requirement in favor of a simple cause-of-action requirement and 2) recognition of an external constraint on standing derived from Article II, rather than Article III.

Part …