Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be supported by “Oath or affirmation.” Under current doctrine, a police officer may swear the oath to obtain a warrant merely by repeating the account of an informant. This Article shows, however, that the Fourth Amendment, as originally understood, required that the real accuser with personal knowledge swear the oath.

That real-accuser requirement persisted for nearly two centuries. Almost all federal courts and most state courts from 1850 to 1960 held that the oath, by its very nature, required a witness with personal knowledge. Only in 1960 did the Supreme Court hold in Jones …

School Closures And Parental Control: Reinterpreting The Scope And Protection Of Parents’ Due Process Right To Direct Their Children’S Education, Timothy W. Schubert

Fordham Law Review

When COVID-19 hit U.S. shores, it was not long until state governments shuttered both public and private schools. As the closures continued, some parents, hoping to get their children back into the classroom, challenged the constitutionality of school closures, alleging that the closures abridged their due process right to direct the upbringing of their children—commonly referred to as the Meyer-Pierce right. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to articulate the contours of this right or the level of constitutional protection it commands. With little guidance from the Court, lower courts have come to differing conclusions about how to interpret …

Mandatory Narrated Ultrasounds: A First Amendment Perspective On Abortion Regulations, Abigail Tubin

Fordham Law Review

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy in Roe v. Wade, many state legislatures have passed myriad regulations intended to complicate the process of obtaining an abortion. These regulations include “informed consent” provisions, such as the mandatory narrated ultrasound, which impose strict disclosure requirements on physicians who seek to perform abortions. Since these regulations compel physicians to speak when they otherwise might not, these laws implicate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. As a result, physicians looking to perform abortions have an alternative avenue, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, for challenging …

Campaign Finance Reform, Union Dues, And The First Amendment: The Collision Of Politics And Rights, Mark Adams

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley

Washington Law Review

For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …

Against Political Speech, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Large-Capacity Magazine Bans And The Second Amendment, Jared Self

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arkansas’S Civil Asset Forfeiture Statute And The Eighth Amendment’S Excessive Fines Clause, Aaron Newell

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will Due Process Be Returned To Academic Suspension?: An Analysis Of Academia's Rejection Of The Title Ix Final Rule, Andrew F. Emerson

Catholic University Law Review

In 2011, the Department of Education ("DOE") under the Obama administration issued its Dear College Letter ("DCL") ordering publicly funded educational institutions to undertake aggressive actions to deter what was deemed an epidemic of sexual violence on college campuses. DOE subsequently aggressively enforced the directives of the DCL with scores of costly investigations of college disciplinary systems and threatened withdrawal of federal funding for institutions that failed to respond to sexual harassment claims aggressively. Hundreds of lawsuits followed in the wake of the DCL's issuance. Specifically, the flood of litigation was initiated by males contending they were briskly expelled, suspended, …

Hope Dies Last: The Progressive Potential And Regressive Reality Of The Antibalkanization Approach To Racial Equality, David Simson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article relies on Critical Race Theory concepts and social science research to make an important and timely contribution to a debate in law and public policy that is both long-standing and of immense current importance: What is the relationship between social cohesion on the one hand, and racial equality progress on the other?

[...]

Over the last four decades, the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence on governmental race-consciousness has answered with an “antibalkanization approach” which prioritizes social cohesion. Indeed, this approach views social cohesion as a prerequisite for racial equality progress. It considers racial hostility and resentment among White …

From Private Prejudice To Public Policy: How Religious Conservatives Use Liberalism To Control Women's Bodies -- The United States And Israel In Comparative Perspective, Gila Stopler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Article uses the feminist critique of the patriarchal nature of religion and liberalism, the feminist critique of flaws in political liberalism, and a socio-political analysis of the power of religious conservative groups in the United States and Israel to claim that religious conservatives use the patriarchal nature of liberalism, its inherent flaws, and conservative political power to turn private religious prejudice into public policy. Analyzing the constitutional and legal status of religion in the United States and the recent dramatic changes it has undergone, the Article shows that contrary to popular belief, and due to the aforementioned factors, the …

Solidifying Supremacy Clause Immunity, Leslie A. Gardner, Justin C. Van Orsdol

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

States have often taken different approaches to polarizing issues such as the legalization of marijuana, voting rights, and gun safety. Generally, the federal government has stayed out of the fray honoring the concept of the “states as laboratories.” That is, until recently. With increasing debate among political leaders and diverging viewpoints among Department of Justice officials, clashes between federal officers and state governments have increased. But what happens to a federal officer caught in the crossfire, charged by a state prosecutor for breaking state criminal law while attempting to enforce federal law? The answer lies in the doctrine of Supremacy …

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: The Supreme Court Misses Its "Shot" At Clarifying State Alcohol Regulations And The Commerce Clause, Josephine Battles

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court erred by denying certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The Texas statute that bans all publicly traded corporations from obtaining a license to sell liquor, but carves an exception for some Texas-run public corporations through an express clause, is in direct violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Texas Legislature disguised the public corporation ban as a “facially neutral” alcohol regulation, however, the ban is discriminatory towards out-of-state competitors in both its purpose and effect. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores is firmly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the …

The Coddling Of The American Worker's Mind: The Anti-Free Speech Nature Of Popular Labor Law Reforms, Daniel V. Johns

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

As the nation enters an era in which a new presidential administration will likely push such labor law reforms, it is worth considering whether transparently anti-free speech reform measures make sense for the future of labor policy and law. This Article argues that they do not. Because employee free choice is furthered, not diminished, by hearing both sides of an issue, American workers should have the opportunity to hear and evaluate employer speech in the course of union campaigns. Only then can employees make an informed decision about their workplace future. In the end, freedom of speech furthers employee freedom …

Not So Objective Indicia: Why Public Polling And Ballot Referenda Could Create A More Concrete Standard For Eighth Amendment Objective Indicia Analysis, Jonathan Marchuk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Eighth Amendment states that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Through the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions on punishment are applicable to the states. Over the years, the interpretation of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has changed. Cruel and unusual punishments include those punishments that are greatly disproportionate to the committed offense, but what is considered a disproportionate punishment is not a static judgment. Instead, part of the proportionality analysis of the punishment to the crime looks to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a …

All The Sovereign's Agents: The Constitutional Credentials Of Administration, Kate Jackson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[...] This Article suggests that agency institutions should be measured against the notion that popular sovereignty demands not consensus and consent, but instead institutions that permit citizens to understand themselves as coequal participants in the collective decision-making process.

Part I situates administrative agencies in an understanding of liberal democratic constitutionalism that eschews outmoded notions of popular sovereignty and natural law. It will then explain how adequately conceived notions of the separation of powers and the rule of law cannot serve as indefeasible objections to administration. Part II makes a positive case for agency authority by drawing from the insights gained …

Your Liberty Is Not A Right To Jeopardize My Health: How A State Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate Promotes Health Justice, Rebecca L. Doloski

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has once again brought the vaccine debate into the national spotlight. Except this time, whether to be vaccinated or not has become widely politicized and the rapid spread of misinformation has led to a deadly game of those who refuse to be vaccinated not only allowing themselves to be susceptible to a deadly virus, but also putting others at risk. In addition to the misinformation and politicization of this issue, the question of constitutionality of such measures is back in the spotlight as potential state vaccine mandates appear to be on the horizon. This paper seeks to …

Hope Dies Last: The Progressive Potential And Regressive Reality Of The Antibalkanization Approach To Racial Equality, David Simson

Articles & Chapters

This Article relies on Critical Race Theory concepts and social science research to make an important and timely contribution to a debate in law and public policy that is both longstanding and of immense current importance: What is the relationship between social cohesion on the one hand, and racial equality progress on the other. Events over the last year have put this question into sharp relief. On the one hand, portions of the general public and at least some policymakers have signaled support for the demands of racial justice activists to reduce and eliminate systemic racism after too many tragedies …

Nonparty Jurisdiction, Aaron D. Simowitz, Linda J. Silberman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Supreme Court's recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, including its 2021 decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, have all focused on the adjudication of plenary claims. In seven years, the Court has decided six major cases on personal jurisdiction in that context. However, these precedents also appear to guide lower courts in areas outside the traditional focus of personal jurisdiction doctrine but where personal jurisdiction is nonetheless necessary. For example, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a nonparty witness in order to compel the witness to testify or to produce documents. A court must …

Random Justice, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As recent Senate confirmation practices suggest, the Supreme Court is best understood as the head of a political branch of government, whose Justices are chosen in a process that makes their ideological views dispositive. Throughout the nation’s history, the Supreme Court has exercised its governing political ideology in ways that sacrifice the interests of nonwhites in order to advance the interests of Whites. In the present moment of heightened cultural sensitivity to structural discrimination and implicit bias, it would make sense to use affirmative action to help remedy the racially disparate distribution of societal resources that has been produced by …

The Living Rules Of Evidence, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

The jurisprudential evolution of evidence law is dead. At least, that’s what we’re expected to believe. Ushered in on the wings of a growing positivist movement, the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence purported to quell judicial authority over evidence law. Instead, committees, conferences, and members of Congress would regulate any change to our evidentiary regime, thereby capturing the evolution of evidence law in a single, transparent code.

The codification of evidence law, though, has proven problematic. The arrival of the Federal Rules of Evidence has given rise to a historically anomalous era of relative stagnation in the doctrinal …

The Unbearable Emptiness Of Formalism: Autonomy, Equality, And The Future Of Affirmative Action, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

Debates over affirmative action in higher education generally focus on equality interests under the Fourteenth Amendment but ignore liberty interests under the First Amendment. That tendency persists, even though the academic freedom to enroll a diverse student body has allowed colleges and universities to defend race-conscious admissions programs against legal challenges for decades. Today, the rise of formalism in judicial interpretation poses new perils for these programs. Justice Powell’s seminal decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a pragmatic compromise that used diversity to temper the polarized debate over equality that sharply divided the Court. In …

The Public Accommodations Dilemma - Whose Right Prevails, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

This essay gives a brief history of religious liberty-based objections to public accommodations law promoting societal integration and provides a potential solution. It argues there are parallels between LGBTQ discrimination and race discrimination, including the continued resistance to full integration and equality. The essay suggests a potential solution to the public accommodations dilemma between anti-discrimination and religious liberty in redefining the scope of religious liberty. Courts should protect religious services and activities—not secular services and activities. The status (religious or secular) of the person providing services should be irrelevant. The focus of public accommodations laws, and legal challenges to these …

Perubahan Undang-Undang Oleh Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Kacamata Pasal 1 Ayat (2) Kuhp, Marco Hardianto

Indonesia Criminal Law Review

One of the basic principles in criminal law is the principle of transitory, namely the principle that regulates the enforcement of the law in the event of an amendment in legislation after a criminal act is committed. Regarding to the phrase 'amandment in legislation', there are three running doctrine: formele leer (Simons, 1910), beperkte materiele leer (Van Geuns, 1919), and onbeperkte materiele leer (Hoge Raad, 1921). These three doctrines developed prior to the recognition of judicial review by the Constitutional Court. Logical implication: Amendment in legislation as referred to in the principle of transitory does not include amendment as the …

Mencari Solusi Atas Masalah Pemidanaan Suatu Kebijakan Dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia, Muhammad Tanziel Aziezi

Indonesia Criminal Law Review

Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 states that the word “dapat” in Article 2 Paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law Number 31 Year 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 on Anti-Corruption Law has no binding legal force. This decision departs from the argument that the word "dapat" creates fear and anxiety from state officials about the practice of criminalizing policies with corruption because the word "dapat" causes state losses that do not have to occur in real terms. With this decision, a person can only be said to have violated Article 2 Paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Jacobson V. Massachusetts, Josh Blackman

Buffalo Law Review

During the COVID-19 outbreak, Jacobson v. Massachusetts became the fountainhead for pandemic jurisprudence. Courts relied on this 1905 precedent to resolve disputes about religious freedom, abortion, gun rights, voting rights, the right to travel, and many other contexts. But Justice John Marshall Harlan’s decision was very narrow. It upheld the state’s power to impose a nominal fine on an unvaccinated person. No more, no less. Yet, judges now follow a variant of Jacobson that is far removed from the Lochner-era decision. And the Supreme Court is largely to blame for these errors. Over the course of a century, four prominent …

Clouded Precedent: Tandon V. Newsom And Its Implications For The Shadow Docket, Alexander Gouzoules

Buffalo Law Review

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—the decisions issued outside its procedures for deciding cases on the merits—has drawn increasing attention and criticism from scholars, commentators, and elected representatives. Shadow docket decisions have been criticized on the grounds that they are made without the benefit of full briefing and argument, and because their abbreviated, per curiam opinions can be difficult for lower courts to interpret.

A spate of shadow docket decisions in the context of free-exercise challenges to COVID-19 public health orders culminated in Tandon v. Newsom, a potentially groundbreaking decision that may upend longstanding doctrines governing claims brought under the Free …

Cruel And Unusual Punishment: The Eighth Amendment And Ice Detainees In The Covid-19 Crisis, Nechelle Nicholas

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proper Cause For Concern: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association V. Bruen, Ali Rosenblatt

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Gun rights and gun control advocates alike are watching the Supreme Court, to see what happens in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In this pivotal Second Amendment case, the Court finds its first opportunity to substantially extend its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and to define the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home. The Court can decide this case narrowly by limiting its decision to the statutes at issue, New York’s “proper cause” regime (the “New York law”). Alternatively, the Court can rule broadly and use …

Commentary: The Pragmatic Consequentialism Of Justice Breyer, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Justice Stephen Breyer’s announcement of his intention to retire at the end of the Supreme Court’s current term provides occasion to contrast his approach to judging with the very different approach of the court majority he leaves behind. The contrast is frequently explained in partisan terms: Justice Breyer is a “liberal” who was appointed by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton), whereas the majority is “conservative,” having been appointed by three different Republican presidents (George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump).

The use of partisan labels to describe the different approaches to judging employed by the court’s two …