Jurisprudence Commons^™

Recovering Constitutional Identity In Colonial South India: Sedition, Sovereignty, And Small-C Constitutionalism In Pudukkottai, Bharath Gururagavendran

National Law School Journal

Constitutional identity is easiest to identify when it has already been credentialed: by a constitutional text, constituent authorisation, or judicial recognition. What remains visible when those markers are absent? Through a historically grounded study of the ‘Little Kingdom’ of Pudukkottai, a princely state in colonial South India, this article examines whether constitutional identity can be recovered from the small-c life of a polity whose opportunities for formal constitution-making were structurally foreclosed. Pudukkottai had no big-C moment. Its constitutional life, if it had one, must be reconstructed from less authoritative materials. The article argues that the absence of a constitutional text …

Property Rights Or Obstacles To Progress?: The Fundamental Flaws In Takings Jurisprudence, Liam Higgins

Journal of Law and Policy

New York boasts some of the strongest protections for tenants out of all jurisdictions throughout the country. Chief among these laws is the state Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”). Among other protections, the RSL has limited excessive rent increases on regulated apartments, granted tenants a right of renewal so that they could remain in their homes, and permitted family members to take over the tenancy of their loved ones upon their passing. The RSL has been amended several times throughout its history, each time providing more or less protections depending on the administration at the time. Recently, in 2019, the New …

Textualism In Practice, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is by now axiomatic to note that textualism has won the statutory interpretation wars. But contrary to what textualists long have promised, the widespread embrace of textualism as an interpretive methodology has not resulted in any real clarity or predictability about the interpretive path—or even the specific interpretive tools—that courts will invoke in a particular case. Part of the reason for this lack of predictability is that textualism-in-practice often differs significantly from the approach that textualism-in-theory advertises; and part of the reason is that textualism-in-theory is sometimes in tension with itself. In light of textualism’s ascendance—and now dominance—on the …

In Praise Of Ignoring Facts, Stephen E. Sachs

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Treating every use of legal rhetoric as equally probative of American law is fatal to the theoretical project—including to [Jack] Balkin’s own “thin” theory of constitutional law, which stretches itself past the breaking point in the hopes of accommodating the changing winds of social movements. Rather than take advocates’ rhetorical moves for granted, we scholars have the indulgence and time to look for the implicit theories underlying these moves, to air those theories explicitly, to identify what might make them true or false, and to assess how plausible they are on those grounds. Constitutional theories need microfoundations: a theory of …

The Politics Of Constitutional Dignity Jurisprudence, Daniel Haefke

Brooklyn Law Review

This Article traces the politics of (human) dignity in US constitutional law. It reveals that the notion has undergone a conservative shift, which has resulted from Supreme Court Justices increasingly unleashing dignity’s dormant conservative potential. Legal scholars arguing for prominently including the notion in constitutional jurisprudence reflect the belief that adopting the language of dignity would push the Supreme Court to be more sensitive to progressive political demands. This progressive constitutional dignity optimism is historically plausible yet conceptually misguided. It is historically plausible considering the legacy of constitutional dignity in previous opinions of the Court. As the Article expounds, the …

A Fundamental Failing: The Mississippi Judiciary's Abrogation Of Its Constitutional Duty, Brad Robertson

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mutual Recognitions Across Generations, Steven L. Winter Walter S. Gibbs Distinguished Professor Of Constitutional Law

Law Faculty Research Publications

“Sovereignty,” Arendt says, “is contradictory to” the human condition. It is not, in any event, the kind of thing that can be shared across generations. Subsequent generations lack sovereignty to the precise degree that they are bound by the decisions of their predecessors. It is no answer to say that contemporary citizens participate in the sovereignty of a whole, transgenerational people. To paraphrase de Tocqueville, later generations are not free because they are not entirely equal, and they are not equal because they are not entirely free.

Where “sovereignty” is a metaphysical concept that transcends time, recognition is an act …

Separation Of Powers Restrictions On Judicial Rulemaking: A Case Study Of Federal Rule 4, Ralph U. Whitten

Maine Law Review

Debates over the validity of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have historically centered on the "substantive rights" restriction of the Rules Enabling Act of 1934. While Supreme Court decisions from Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. through Hanna v. Plumer and beyond have arguably deprived the restriction of any practical force, scholars have consistently favored a more rigorous interpretation of the directive that federal rules not "abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive rights." Despite the historic impotence of the substantive rights restriction, discussions of the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continue, even today, to center on the substantive …

City Of Portland V. Depaolo: Defining The Role Of Stare Decisis In State Constitutional Decisionmaking, Thad B. Zmistowski

Maine Law Review

Five years ago, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, aligned itself with a growing number of states by adopting the primacy method of state constitutional decisionmaking. Under the primacy method, a state court decides an issue of constitutional law by first looking to that state's own constitution; if the issue is resolvable on state constitutional grounds, the federal constitutional grounds are not reached. Adoption of the primacy method by numerous state courts has generated considerable debate concerning issues of state constitutional law. Little discussion, however, has focused on the methodology of state constitutional adjudication. As a …

Theistic Illiberal Constitutionalism: A Review Of Adrian Vermeule’S Common Good Constitutionalism, Kyron J. Huigens

Articles

Adrian Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism drew a remarkable amount of attention from constitutional law scholars when it was published in 2020. About eighteen months later, Vermeule published a piece complaining that the critics had missed the point, that they had ignored the natural law jurisprudence that grounds the work. He was correct. This Review addresses Vermeule’s natural law jurisprudence, emphasizing the fact that it is a religious natural law jurisprudence. His arguments are in the tradition of ScholasticismAristotelian logic incorporated into Christian theology by St. Thomas Aquinas. Scholasticism is a remarkably weak foundation for constitutional jurisprudence. It is a vast …

Chilling Victims’ Rights: The Supreme Court Creates A “Pride Of Place” For True Threats, Ana Maria Matovic

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Living in the Information Age means that information is literally always at our fingertips. This also means that keeping tabs on one another is as easy as a tap on a screen. The effortless ability to follow another’s life on the internet has led to a sinister phenomenon: cyberstalking. Prosecuting cyberstalking cases poses complex constitutional challenges. Specifically, prosecuting these cases may clash with a perpetrator’s First Amendment right to free speech. However, the First Amendment does not protect all categories of speech. One of those unprotected categories is the category of “true threats.” If a perpetrator’s conduct constitutes a “true …

Overturning Sffa V. Harvard, David Hinojosa, Chavis Jones

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

One of the first lessons law students learn is the importance of stare decisis. It not only serves as a tool to learn how to apply settled law to argument and persuasive writing, but foundationally stare decisis helps promote the public’s trust, confidence, and faith in the judicial system. Thus, when the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 opinion in 2023 in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/University of North Carolina (“Harvard”), most onlookers viewed the decision as being the final nail in the coffin for affirmative action in higher education admissions. However, we—the authors—are among the minority.

In …

George Washington’S Teeth, Wittgenstein, And Two Gruesome Problems For Originalism, Scott Devito

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

With the conservative turn of the U.S. Supreme Court, originalism has become ascendant. This rise to preeminence should trouble the legal community because originalism is grounded on a naive understanding of the interpretative process. Once we wash away this naivety and delve more deeply into legislative interpretation, we see that originalism fails in three ways. First, here is recent empirical evidence that general meaning is rare and, as such, the original meaning required by the theory is unlikely to have existed. Second, originalism fails to take into account the Problem of Induction—that making generalized inferences from a limited dataset is …

Administrative Arrest Warrants: Armed Encounters Outside The Judicial Process, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

This Article considers three related questions. First, is a person “seized” under the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement restricts a person’s movements in their home and limits their ability to leave or go about their business? Second, does the answer to this seizure inquiry turn on the person’s citizenship status? And third, how do lawyers ensure that courts discard bad law? This last question is not a qualitative assessment— with good and bad law being tied to one’s legal ideology. Rather, certain legal holdings, dating back over half a century, have been whittled away if not entirely eroded. When this …

Major Questions, Common Sense?, Kevin Tobia, Daniel E. Walters, Brian Slocum

Faculty Scholarship

The Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) is the newest textualist interpretive canon, and it has driven consequential Supreme Court decisions concerning vaccine mandates, environmental regulation, and student loan relief. But the new MQD is a canon in search of legitimization. Critics allege that the MQD displaces the Court’s conventional textual analysis with judicial policymaking. Textualists have now responded that the MQD is a linguistic canon, consistent with textualism. Justice Barrett recently argued in Biden v. Nebraska that the MQD is grounded in ordinary people’s understanding of language and law, and scholarship contends that the MQD reflects ordinary people’s understanding of textual …

Prudence, Role Morality, And Restraint: Judge Wilkinson On The Separation Of Powers, Katherine Mims Crocker, Jack Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

Caution in reviewing the actions of the legislative and executive branches has been a hallmark of the jurisprudence of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. The Constitution “at most gives judges specific authority to redress violations of specific provisions,” Judge Wilkinson writes in his book Cosmic Constitutional Theory. But even when doing so, “courts must exercise great caution before injecting themselves into the vortex of varied political questions,” for “[i]t is often far preferable to allow the political institutions under our Constitution to struggle among themselves, with each bringing to bear the respective arsenal of powers the Framers accorded them.” …

University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kompetensi Absolut Dan Aktivisme Yudisial Dalam Peran Mahkamah Agung Menguji Anggaran Dasar Partai Politik Di Indonesia, Denis Kurniawan

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

This article examines the necessity for the Supreme Court to extend its absolute competence in conducting judicial reviews (right to judicial review) of the Articles of Association and/or Bylaws of Political Parties, which serve as the object of review (objectum litis). This article was prepared by doctrinal research methods. Political parties are institutions that are known for their existence, authority, and constitutional dissolution through the 1945 Constitution. As such, the Articles of Association and Bylaws of Political Parties can be defined as regulations that are established by a Political Party based on orders from higher legal norms, namely the law. …

Free Speech Originalism: Unconstraining In Theory And Opportunistic In Practice, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

Courts should not apply originalism in freedom of expression cases. Originalists claim that originalism prevents judges from imposing their own views. It does not-not in theory and not in practice. Instead, as the treatment of hate speech bans suggests, it is not principles but outcomes that determine whether and which version of originalism is used. Moreover, a true originalist First Amendment would likely lead to impoverished free speech protections.

Part I provides background on original public meaning originalism, the iteration of originalism currently favored by scholars. It also explains how the theory falls short of its original promise of limiting …

Egypt’S Legal Modernism: Challenging The National Discourse, Mohamed A. El-Deeb

Theses and Dissertations

Egypt’s legal modernity is the story of the modern Egyptian state itself. Reforming the country’s judiciary in the late nineteenth century was meant to achieve ambitious aims beyond the functionality of a justice system. The utmost goal was the country’s independence from the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. The judicial reforms modernized the Egyptian state and built a judiciary and legal community like no other place. Egypt achieved its independent judiciary before gaining its political independence. That was a remarkable achievement of the judicial reform. That rich part of Egypt’s modern history is negated and disregarded from public awareness. Not …

Locke’S “Wild Indian” In United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Anthony W. Hobert Phd

American Indian Law Journal

This article explores the impact of John Locke’s Two Treatises on United States Indigenous property rights jurisprudence. After discussing Locke’s arguments, the article turns to the rationales of the first and last cases of the Marshall Trilogy—Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)—arguing that, contrary to prevailing political theory, Marshall’s opinion for the Court in Johnson puts forth a fundamentally Lockean justification for the dispossession of Indigenous property. This article also provides a brief analysis of Marshall’s explicit Vattelian rationale in Worcester, commentary on recent developments regarding the precedents, and recommendations for reconciling them within contemporary …

The Poor Man's Problem In Bankruptcy, Rylee Stanley

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Rights And Retrenchment: The Elusive Promise Of Equal Citizenship, Deborah L. Brake

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Evident: Why The Declaration Of Independence Is America’S True Constitution, Chelsea H. Blake

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

Decoding Dobbs: A Typology To Better Understand The Roberts Court's Jurisprudence, Katie Yoder

Honors Projects

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized Substantive Due Process (“SDP”) in the early twentieth century. In Lochner v. New York, the Court established that there are certain unenumerated rights that are implied by the Fourteenth Amendment.Though SDP originated in a case about worker’s rights and liberties, it quickly became relevant to many cases surrounding personal intimate decisions involving health, safety, marriage, sexual activity, and reproduction.Over the past 60 years, the Court relied upon SDP to justify expanding a fundamental right to privacy, liberty, and the right to medical decision making. Specifically, the court applied these concepts to allow for freedoms …

The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann

Brooklyn Law Review

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court elevated the major questions doctrine to new heights by reframing it as a substantive canon and clear statement rule rooted in the separation of powers. The academic response has missed two unanswered questions that will determine the extent of the doctrine’s domain. First, how will the Court apply the doctrine to a range of different regulatory schemes? The doctrine has so far only been applied to nationwide legislative rules that are both (1) economically or politically significant and (2) transformative. It is unclear whether the doctrine applies to alternative modes of regulation …

When Life Takes Your Lemons: Resolving The Legislative Prayer Debate In School Board Settings In Light Of Kennedy V. Bremerton School District, Jordan Halper

Brooklyn Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic fanned the flames of a fire that had been slowly but steadily burning since 2016, arming the loudest warriors of America’s endless culture war with a slew of new divisive issues. Virtually overnight, parental rights groups began capitalizing on the frustration in their communities in order to spur political change, training their ire toward public schools. What began as a crusade against mask mandates and vaccines manifested into a well-funded effort by ultraconservative groups to undermine the public education system as a whole. Against this backdrop, the legislative prayer exception—which was meant to sanction the practice of …

Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein

Brooklyn Law Review

Chevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This …

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

How Close Is Close Enough: A Step-By-Step Analysis To Resolve The Circuit Split Created By Misunderstanding The Spokeo Ruling, Cason Shipp

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.