Constitutional Law Commons^™

March 28, 2018: Is Donald Trump The Antichrist?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Is Donald Trump the Antichrist?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Dassey V. Dittmann: Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors Of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, And Constitutional Law In Support Of Petitioner, Samuel R. Gross, Yale Kamisar

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae are academics who focus on criminal procedure and Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment law. (A list of the amici curiae is attached as Appendix A.) Their principal interest in this case is proper application of clear Supreme Court precedent in assessing the voluntariness of the confession given by the juvenile suspect in this case. Amici file this brief out of concern that some lower courts, including the court below, are straying from this Court's clear mandates in applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test to confessions given by juveniles with intellectual impairments. Amici write to provide a historical overview of this …

Dassey V. Dittmann: Brief Amici Curiae Of Professors Of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, And Constitutional Law In Support Of Petitioner, Samuel Gross, Yale Kamisar, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae are academics who focus on criminal procedure and Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment law. (A list of the amici curiae is attached as Appendix A.) Their principal interest in this case is proper application of clear Supreme Court precedent in assessing the voluntariness of the confession given by the juvenile suspect in this case. Amici file this brief out of concern that some lower courts, including the court below, are straying from this Court's clear mandates in applying the totality- of-the-circumstances test to confessions given by juveniles with intellectual impairments. Amici write to provide a historical overview of …

The Death Penalty And The Constitution, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[excerpt] The death penalty is back in the news. Last week, President Donald Trump argued that capital punishment should be available to punish drug dealers who have contributed to the opioid crisis. Earlier this month, the New Hampshire Senate voted to prospectively repeal the state's death penalty. These developments provide occasion to review the constitutional issues raised when the federal government or a state seeks to put a convict to death.

Treating Neighbors As Nuisances: Troubling Applications Of Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances, Joseph Mead, Megan E. Hatch, J. Rosie Tighe, Marissa Pappas, Kristi Andrasik, Elizabeth Bonham

Et Cetera

Thousands of cities nationwide enforce Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances that catalyze the eviction of tenants when there are two or more police visits to a property. We report findings of an empirical study of enforcement of nuisance ordinances, finding that cities often target survivors of domestic violence, people experiencing a mental health crisis, nonprofit organizations serving people with disabilities, people seeking life-saving medical intervention to prevent a fatal drug overdose, and non-criminal behavior such as playing basketball or being “disrespectful.” Codifying into public policy a path to homelessness in these instances is not only cruel and counterproductive, but likely violates …

March 23, 2018: Going Martin Luther King, Jr., One Better, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Going Martin Luther King, Jr., One Better“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Third Circuit Confusion: Ncaa V. Christie And An Opportunity To Defend Federalism, Zachary Buckheit

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

NCAA v. Christie will determine whether a federal statute that prevents a state legislature from repealing a previously enacted state law violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 2014, New Jersey passed a state law repealing state prohibitions against sports wagering in Atlantic City. Five sports leagues sued New Jersey in federal court. The leagues asserted that the new state law violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), a federal law. New Jersey claimed PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was accordingly unconstitutional. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that PASPA does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because it …

Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are struggling to meet the dual mandates of election sanctity and increased voter access. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court can give states a guideline for what is an acceptable process that complies with the conflicting federal policies in the NVRA and HAVA. The Court should …

Patchak V. Zinke, Separation Of Powers, And The Pitfalls Of Form Over Substance, Michael Fisher

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Mr. Patchak was a concerned citizen with standing to bring a suit against the federal government. A previous Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, made it clear that Mr. Patchak would win his case. Congress, however, did not want him to do so. Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Gun Lake Act, which effectively ordered Mr. Patchak’s suit to be dismissed. Mr. Patchak’s suit was subsequently dismissed, and he appealed on the grounds that the Gun Lake Act violated separation of powers principles.

Privacy, Mass Intrusion And The Modern Data Breach, Jon L. Mills, Kelsey Harclerode

Florida Law Review

Massive data breaches have practically become a daily occurrence. These breaches reveal intrusive private information about individuals, as well as priceless corporate secrets. Ashley Madison’s breach ruined lives and resulted in suicides. The HSBC breach, accomplished by one of their own, revealed valuable commercial information about the bank and personal information about HSBC customers. The employee responsible for the breach has since been convicted of aggravated personal espionage, while third-party news outlets have been free to republish the hacked information.

Some information disclosed in data breaches can serve a public purpose. The Snowden disclosures, for example, revealed sensitive government information …

Contextualizing The Free Exercise Of Religion, Adam Lamparello

Florida Law Review

The level of protection afforded to an individual’s First Amendment right to freely exercise religion should depend upon the context within which it is exercised. Put differently, an individual’s right to religious liberty should be balanced against other individuals’ right to equal protection of the law, and the broader societal interest in protecting individuals from invidious discrimination. This Article proposes a multifactor test that fully protects the right to freely exercise one’s religion while simultaneously safeguarding equal protection and antidiscrimination guarantees. Specifically, the level of protection afforded to a free exercise claim should depend, among other things, on whether it …

Being Forced To Code In The Technology Era As A Violation Of The First Amendment Protection Against Compelled Speech, Adrianna Oddo

Catholic University Law Review

Over the past several decades, technological advancements led several courts to hold that computer code is protected as speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, after fourteen people were killed in the 2015 San Bernardino massacre the U.S. Government sought to ignore those findings when it ordered Apple, Inc. to write a computer code to bypass the encryption software on the shooter’s cell phone. To access this particular phone Apple would need to write a code that could potentially compromise its customers’ data and personal information. Apple vehemently opposed the Government’s order and claimed that compelling it to …

When Constitutional Rights Clash: Masterpiece Cakeshop's Potential Legacy, Ken Hyle

ConLawNOW

The narrow question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop is undoubtedly one of great national importance. The decision will likely yield a framework for courts to resolve conflicts that specifically involve religious freedom, artistic expression, and anti-discrimination laws in the context of public accommodations. However, my essay suggests that Masterpiece Cakeshop is an appropriate vehicle for the Court to expound upon a broader, more fundamental constitutional issue: what is the optimal framework for resolving direct conflicts between constitutional rights? The essay begins by exploring the inherent flaw in a framework grounded in the traditional levels of judicial …

Remedies Symposium: Article Iii, Remedies, And Representation, Andrew Coan, David Marcus

ConLawNOW

As articulated by the United States Supreme Court, the principal purpose of Article III standing is to force decisions affecting large numbers of people into the democratic process where all affected parties are represented. The logical implication of this “representation-centered theory” for the proper scope of injunctive relief is straightforward. That relief must not exceed what is reasonably necessary to remedy the particularized injury that sets the plaintiff or plaintiffs apart from the general population. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this logic. Yet courts and commentators, including the Court itself, routinely ignore it. The most prominent recent examples are …

March 18, 2018: Ross Douthat Misunderstands How Christ Works In The World, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Ross Douthat Misunderstands How Christ Works in the World“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Weather Forecast For March 25: Stormy On 60 Minutes? 03-18-2018, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Schuette And Antibalkanization, Samuel Weiss, Donald Kinder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy’s controlling plurality revised the political process doctrine and ended the practice of affirmative action in Michigan. In this opinion, Kennedy followed in the Court’s tradition of invoking antibalkanization values in equal protection cases, making the empirical claims both that antibalkanization motivated the campaign to end affirmative action in Michigan and that the campaign itself would, absent judicial intervention, have antibalkanizing effects.

Using sophisticated empirical methods, this Article is the first to examine whether the Court’s claims on antibalkanization are correct. We find they are not. Support for the Michigan …

The Bergdahl Block: How The Military Limits Public Access To Preliminary Hearings And What We Can Do About It, Eric R. Carpenter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and Private First Class Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning have something in common. Military officials unlawfully closed all or portions of their preliminary hearings to the public. When doing so, military officials exploited two unusual features of the military justice system, thereby denying the accused and the media of their respective Sixth Amendment and First Amendment rights to a public hearing.

The first feature is that the military justice system does not include a standing trial-level court. If there is a problem at the preliminary hearing, the accused and media have nowhere to go for help. The accused …

Legitimacy, Authority, And The Right To Affordable Bail, Colin Starger, Michael Bullock

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Bail reform is hot. Over the past two years, jurisdictions around the country have moved to limit or end money bail practices that discriminate against the poor. Although cheered on by many, bail reform is vehemently opposed by the powerful bail-bond industry. In courts around the country, lawyers representing this industry have argued that reform is unnecessary, and even unconstitutional. One particularly insidious argument advanced by bail-bond apologists is that a “wall of authority” supports the proposition that “bail is not excessive merely because the defendant is unable to pay it.” In other words, authority rejects the right to affordable …

Fifty Shades And Fifty States: Is Bdsm A Fundamental Right? A Test For Sexual Privacy, Elizabeth Mincer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Quitting Cold Turkey?: Federal Preemption Doctrine And State Bans On Fda-Approved Drugs, Thomas A. Costello

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Hard Truth About The Penile Plethysmograph: Gender Disparity And The Untenable Standard In The Fourth Circuit, Lindsay Blumberg

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And The Language Of The Law, John O. Mcginnis, Michael B. Rappaport

William & Mary Law Review

A long-standing debate exists over whether the Constitution is written in ordinary or legal language. Yet no article has offered a framework for determining the nature of the Constitution’s language, let alone systematically canvassed the evidence.

This Article fills the gap. First, it shows that a distinctive legal language exists. This language in the Constitution includes terms, like “Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” that are unambiguously technical, and terms, like “good behavior,” that are ambiguous in that they have both an ordinary and legal meaning but are better interpreted according to the latter. It also includes legal interpretive rules such …

Being Seen Like A State: How Americans (And Britons) Built The Constitutional Infrastructure Of A Developing Nation, Daniel J. Hulsebosch

William & Mary Law Review

This Article develops the argument that the Federal Constitution of 1787 was conceptualized, drafted, and put into operation not only for American citizens but also for foreign audiences. In a world without supranational governing institutions, a constitution—at least, the Federal Constitution—might serve to promote peaceable international relations based on reciprocal trade and open credit. That at least was the Enlightenment-inflected hope.

Did it work? If early Americans engaged in constitution-making in large part to demonstrate their capacity for self-government, selfdiscipline, and commercial openness to foreign audiences, did anyone notice? Or was it all, regardless of diplomatic purposes and consistent with …

March 14, 2018: Conor Lamb’S Apparent Win, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ Conor Lamb’s Apparent Win“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Carpenter V. United States: How Many Cell Phone Location Points Constitute A Search Under The Fourth Amendment?, Douglas Harris

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of a suspect’s cell site location information (“CSLI”) during an ongoing criminal investigation is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, and thus requires a showing of probable cause to obtain a warrant. This opinion will have future consequences for Americans and their privacy interests as cell sites continue to be built and CSLI records increasingly contain more private information about cell phone users. This commentary argues that that the necessity of owning and using cell phones renders past tests obsolete. With wavering, subjective expectations of …

Remedies Symposium: Reexamining Bivens After Ziglar V. Abbasi, Bernard W. Bell

ConLawNOW

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited Bivens doctrine, suggesting that courts recognize constitutional tort actions only in cases closely analogous to one of the cases comprising the 1970s/1980s era Bivens trilogy, namely Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Davis v. Passman, and Carlson v. Green. In doing so the Court set forth several factors that might make a case distinguishable from those 1970s/1980s cases. This essay argues that the key to Ziglar v. Abbasi is not the analogical exercise the Court imposed, but the Court’s concern that Bivens actions could become a mechanism for …

Remedies Symposium: On Critical Junctures, Intercurrence, And Dynamic Political Orders, Paul Baumgardner

ConLawNOW

Relying on contemporary historical-institutionalist literature concerning processes of American political development, this article argues that the nebulous status of religious rights in the United States is largely a recent phenomenon—the result of one coalition (centered around rights protections for the LGBTQ community) growing and making important strides at the same time that a separate "religious rights” coalition attempts to push beyond a disorienting critical juncture. How long this state of intercurrence will persist, and how it will be resolved, are unresolved questions.

Remedies Symposium: Remedies And The Government's Constitutionally Harmful Speech, Helen Norton

ConLawNOW

Although governments have engaged in expression from their inception, only recently have we begun to consider the ways in which the government’s speech sometimes threatens our constitutional rights. In my contribution to this symposium, I seek to show that although the search for constitutional remedies for the government’s harmful expression is challenging, it is far from futile. This search is also increasingly important at a time when the government’s expressive powers continue to grow—along with its willingness to use these powers for disturbing purposes and with troubling consequences.

More specifically, in certain circumstances, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages can …

Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell

Maine Law Review

In Whren v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even if the stop is a pretext for the investigation of a more serious offense. The Court affirmed the convictions of Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, who had been arrested on federal drug charges after Washington, D.C., police stopped Brown for minor traffic infractions. The Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, brought an end to a long-running debate over the proper …