Courts Commons^™

Betschart V. Oregon: A Seven-Day Standard For Maine, Henry Gates

Maine Law Review

Maine lacks a clear standard for ensuring the right to counsel for indigent defendants. The State’s public defense system is struggling to meet Maine’s constitutional mandate: To provide indigent defense services in rural areas and across the state. An aging bar with few new attorneys working in rural areas—where there are often higher relative prosecution rates and a corresponding increased need for legal services—is contributing to the problem. This has resulted in a legal system that negatively impacts rural communities and indigent defendants to the point that one court concluded the state is violating the Sixth Amendment. Following the Ninth …

The Other Right To Counsel: The Civil Guarantee In State Constitutions, Dmitry Bam

Maine Law Review

When most people speak of the right to counsel, they speak in the singular. After the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions has become one of our most cherished fundamental rights. It is a right ingrained in our culture. Even children can recite the mantra that the accused have the right to a lawyer, and if they can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to them free of charge. It is no surprise, then, that our constitutional focus is trained on the criminal defendant’s right to counsel. After all, there …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Covarrubias v. Vergara before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief supports rehearing en banc and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory, no-bond detention of noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and the historical development of immigration detention, the amici contend that such detention authority has historically been limited to individuals seeking admission at the border.

Electoral Due Process, Michael S. Kang

Northwestern University Law Review

Hyperpartisanship has hit century-long highs in American politics and is emboldening state government attempts to undermine election outcomes by using control over state lawmaking structure to strip away authority, and sometimes outright unseat, partisan opponents after they win elected office. Even as traditional norms against such moves have eroded, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-partisanship turn in removing judicial checks against such moves under equal protection and constitutional structure. This Article proposes shifting from challenges under those doctrines to a new approach under electoral due process for confronting this new generation of antidemocracy. Federal due process law restricts the …

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner-Appellee, Supporting Affirmance, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief filed by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Herrera Avila v. Bondi. The brief examines the scope of mandatory immigration detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens seeking admission at the border rather than individuals apprehended within the interior of the United States.

Toys As Evidence, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This Essay asks and answers a single question, which was posed during a recent symposium at the National Museum of Toys & Miniatures. Could the study of revealed preferences, which is the idea that observed behaviors are the best indicator of one’s beliefs, improve our collective understanding about what constitutes unlawful discrimination in certain U.S. markets? A possible answer, which is informed by the Brown v. Board of Education decision, is the study of revealed preferences may improve our collective understanding for three reasons.

One reason is the study of revealed preferences provides a window into how some producers and …

Rethinking Courtroom Presence In The Virtual Era, Jenia Iontcheva Turner

Indiana Law Journal

Technological innovation has made virtual appearances by criminal defendants increasingly common. These appearances have advanced efficiency but also raised questions about the scope of both the right and the duty of defendants to be physically present in court. Should judges, for example, be allowed to hold virtual arraignments, even if a defendant wishes to appear in person? Can defendants opt for virtual appearances at will? While courts are beginning to address these questions, they have yet to develop a coherent framework to evaluate when virtual appearances are constitutional and appropriate. This Article seeks to contribute to this project by examining …

Representation In The Age Of Repression: America’S Real Immigration Crisis Is The Lack Of Representation In Immigration Court, Paul Wickham Schmidt

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

Incarcerated Individuals' Lives Do Not Matter: A Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Problem, Marshall Farber

Et Cetera

This Note examines the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Love v. Vanihel, in which Tony Love lost 5,700 days of good-time credit following the Indiana Department of Corrections’ issuance of Executive Directive #17-09 (“ED 17-09”). Prior to this directive, the state’s disciplinary code capped good-time credit loss at one year per offense, but ED 17-09 imposed significantly harsher sanctions, stripping Love of over 15 years of accrued credit after a single disciplinary infraction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Love had procedurally defaulted and forfeited his due process claims. This Note argues that the Seventh Circuit’s …

Legalist Realism, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

This essay explores the scholarly footprint of Professor Megan Fairlie. This is a footprint of "legalist realism." Professor Fairlie was greatly concerned with legalism, in other words, the centrality of due process, the rights of the defendant, and human dignity in trials of individuals accused of the most heinous crimes. She was committed to put the law in international criminal law. And her view was one of realism, notably, that the structure of international institutions must be mindful of power politics, and expectations and ambitions ought to recognize the limitations and possibilities of politics in order to retain legitimacy and …

Contempt: The Original Judicial Cheat Code, Ryan L. Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The judicial contempt power challenges the fundamental rights enshrined in America’s Constitution. Imagine spending eight years in federal prison with no right to a jury trial or a court appointed attorney. Your only reprieve is the discretion of the judge who is imprisoning you. Meaningful appeals and even habeas corpus actions are generally not available remedies. Instead, what was originally justified as an inherent power of the court, necessary to maintain order and decorum, is increasingly used for trivial offenses or to incarcerate individuals for far longer than their possible crimes would otherwise warrant.

Despite widespread instances of abuse of …

Without Due Process Of Law: The Dobbs Decision And Its Cataclysmic Impact On The Substantive Due Process And Privacy Rights Of Ohio Women, Jacob Wenner

Journal of Law and Health

Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women’s reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated …

The Emerging Constitutional Law Of Remote Criminal Justice, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The COVID-19 pandemic compelled courts to experiment with a novel mode of criminal process: conducting proceedings via video. The remote format helped protect public health during the pandemic, and its convenience has led many states to continue using it in certain circumstances. Yet questions about its desirability and constitutionality have lingered, and many are concerned that it undermines the justice and integrity of criminal proceedings. As the future of remote criminal justice is up for debate, it is important to assess to what degree it complies with fundamental constitutional principles. To that end, this Article offers a comprehensive analysis of …

Taking The Gavel Away From The Executive Branch: The Indeterminate Sentencing Scheme Under S.B. 201 Is Ripe For Review And Unconstitutional, Jessica Crtalic

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2019, Senate Bill 201, also known as the Reagan Tokes Act, reintroduced an indeterminate sentencing scheme in Ohio whereby sentences are assigned in the form of a range. Under this sentencing scheme, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, through the parole board, has discretion to retain an inmate past the presumptive release date. This fails to afford the accused their guaranteed right to a jury trial, improperly places judiciary power in the hands of the executive branch, and scrutinizes the violation of due process such that the defendant is being denied a fair hearing and notice. Not only …

In Pursuit Of A Modern Standard: The Constitutional Proportions Of Collateral Harm From Pursuits And Police High-Speed Driving, Julian Gilbert

Cleveland State Law Review

Police chases and high-speed driving are common practices that pose a substantial amount of harm and are often unjustified. The benefits of such chases are questionable, and rapid police action at all costs is often unnecessary. When bystanders are injured as a result of police high-speed driving, there are few avenues to have their rights vindicated, and federal court cases require plaintiffs to meet an almost impossible burden. However, under the United States Supreme Court case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis, a plaintiff can put forth evidence that their substantive due process right to life under the Fourteenth …

Forum Fights And Fundamental Rights: Amenability’S Distorted Frame, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Framing—the subtle use of context to suggest a conclusion—is a dubious alternative to direct argumentation. Both the brilliance and the bane of marketing, framing also creeps into supposedly objective analysis. Law offers several examples, but a lesser known one is International Shoe’s two-part jurisdictional test. The framing occurs in the underscoring of defendant’s due process rights contrasted with plaintiff’s “interests” which are often dependent on governmental interests. This equation ignores, both rhetorically and analytically, the injured party’s centuries-old rights to—not interests in—a remedy in an open and adequate forum.

Even within the biased frame, the test generally works, if not …

Maintaining Due Process By Extending Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. To Federal Class Actions, Felicia D. Sych

American University Law Review

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, subsequently altering the scope of personal jurisdiction and further narrowing its interpretation of specific jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. held that a state court can only assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant when there is a meaningful nexus between the forum state and the claims at issue. The Court purposefully refrained from deciding whether its holding applies to federal courts adjudicating federal class actions. After denying a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the issue in 2021, the question …

Originalism And The Meaning Of "Twenty Dollars", Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Originalism claims to provide answers, or at least assistance, for those hoping to interpret a Constitution filled with wide-ranging, morally loaded terminology. Originalists claim that looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will constrain interpreters, maintain consistency and predictability in judicial decisions, and is faithful to ideals like democratic legitimacy. This essay responds with the inevitable, tough question: whether originalism can tell interpreters what the Seventh Amendment's reference to "twenty dollars" means--both as a matter of original meaning and for interpreters today.

While this appears to be an easy question, I demonstrate that rather than telling modern legal …

Due Process Junior: Competent (Enough) For The Court, Tigan Woolson

Journal of Law and Health

There are many reports presenting expert policy recommendations, and a substantial volume of research supporting them, that detail what should shape and guide statutes for juvenile competency to stand trial. Ohio has adopted provisions consistent with some of these recommendations, which is better protection than relying on case law and the adult statutes, as some states have done. However, the Ohio statute should be considered a work in progress.

Since appeals courts are unlikely to provide meaningful review for the substance of a juvenile competency determination, the need for procedures for ensuring that the determination is initially made in a …

Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich

Pepperdine Law Review

The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …

Rethinking The Process Of Service Of Process, Mary K. Bonilla

St. Mary's Law Journal

Even as technology evolves, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Federal Rule 4, remains stagnate without a mechanism directly providing for electronic service of process in federal courts. Rule 4(e)(1) allows service through the use of state law—consequently permitting any state-approved electronic service methods—so long as the federal court where proceedings will occur, or the place where service is made, is located within the state supplying the law. Accordingly, this Comment explains that Rule 4 indirectly permits electronic service of process in some states, but not others, despite all 50 states utilizing the same federal court system. With states …

One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption

in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …

Reflections On Nomos: Paideic Communities And Same Sex Weddings, Marie A. Failinger

Touro Law Review

Robert Cover’s Nomos and Narrative is an instructive tale for the constitutional battle over whether religious wedding vendors must be required to serve same-sex couples. He helps us see how contending communities’ deep narratives of martyrdom and obedience to the values of their paideic communities can be silenced by the imperial community’s insistence on choosing one community’s story over another community’s in adjudication. The wedding vendor cases call for an alternative to jurispathic violence, for a constitutionally redemptive response that prizes a nomos of inclusion and respect for difference.

The Intersection Of Judicial Interpretive Methods And Politics In Supreme Court Justices’ Due Process Opinions, Julie Castle

Capstone Showcase

The Supreme Court, a nine seat bench of unelected and lifetime tenured Justices, determines the constitutionality of dozens of cases each year. In this thesis, I research to what extent the political affiliation of the Justices affect the judicial decision making process and, ultimately, outcomes. Using pattern matching, I evaluate due process opinions from Justice Breyer, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia, all of whom have established constitutional analysis methods, in order to determine if they reasonably adhere to their established method. Due to the highly political nature of due process cases, variance between the expected (adherence to the Justices’ established …

Getting Real About Procedure: Changing How We Think, Write And Teach About American Civil Procedure, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Litigating Welfare Rights: Medicaid, Snap, And The Legacy Of The New Property, Andrew Hammond

Northwestern University Law Review

In 2017, the Republican-controlled Congress was poised to make deep cuts to the nation’s two largest anti-poverty programs: Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “food stamps.” Yet, despite a unified, GOP-led federal government for the first time in over a decade, those efforts failed. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration and its allies in state government continue to pursue different strategies to roll back entitlements to medical and food assistance. As public interest lawyers challenge these agency actions in federal court, roughly five million Americans’ health insurance and food assistance hang in the balance. This Article asks …

It Is Time To Get Back To Basics On The Border, Donna Coltharp

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …