Jurisprudence Commons^™

The Federalism Canons As Ordinary Interpretation, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars remain generally skeptical of substantive canons of statutory interpretation even as courts continue to employ such canons in important cases. Unlike semantic canons, which help judges discern the best meaning of statutory text in context, substantive canons provide tiebreakers when the text is unclear or require special clarity in order for the text to perform certain functions. Among the substantive canons, the so-called “federalism canons” have been singled out for special scrutiny. The federalism canons are a family of canons that require courts to avoid interpreting an act of Congress to divest states of certain sovereign rights or powers—including …

From Dred Scott To Barbara: Birthright Citizenship, Racial Exclusion, And The Enduring Promise Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Jenna A. Milbrodt

CMC Senior Theses

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has guaranteed birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States for hundreds of years. Yet, President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order threatens to strip that right from children born to parents unlawfully in the country and temporary visitors. This order, if permitted to stand, would change the definition of US citizenship and render countless children stateless persons without citizenship rights. This paper examines whether birthright citizenship in the US, properly understood, extends to children of unlawful immigrants and temporary visitors. To answer this question, three time periods of change in citizenship rights …

Let Them Hear It: Peaceful Protests Near The Homes Of Supreme Court Justices, Srikanth Reddy

Lewis & Clark Law Review

All of us—not just attorneys and politicians—need to be more critical and skeptical of the Supreme Court. Criticism by ordinary people is good and appropriate, even if it hurts the Justices’ feelings. That includes public protests. When a case matters enough to them, members of the public can and should criticize the Court and its Justices, including by peacefully gathering and protesting near a Justice’s home, or when a Justice appears out in the world.

Splitting The Statute: Severability As A Canon Of Construction Or Constitutional Concern?, Amy L. Moore

Catholic University Law Review

Severability doctrine stands at the crossroads of statutory interpretation and constitutional structure. This Article traces how the Supreme Court has struggled to define whether severability is merely an interpretive presumption designed to preserve as much of Congress’ work as possible, or a constitutional limit on judicial power that forbids courts from reconstructing statutes Congress never enacted. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison and running through cases like Alaska Airlines, Booker, Ayotte, Seila Law, and Loper Bright, this Article charts the Court’s shifting rationales from legislative intent and functional operability to structural separation-of-powers concerns. It distinguishes between …

Take In Case Of Emergency: Reconciling Necessity Takings With The Original Meaning Of The Takings Clause, Tony Smith

Northwestern University Law Review

Does the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause permit the state to destroy property without compensation whenever it declares an emergency? The long-standing doctrine of necessity empowers the state to do exactly that.

Courts dating back to common law England have permitted governments to claim a privilege of necessity to avoid paying for private property they destroy in times of crisis. The privilege rests on the principle that the public good sometimes outweighs the harm the individual suffers. Today’s courts and academics stretch this principle to its limits, arguing necessity should be used as a vehicle for combating all manner of social …

Something Concrete: How Labor Advocates Can Best Respond To The Ambiguity Of Glacier Northwest, Ateş Serifsoy

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Glacier North-west, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174 (Glacier) marked a critical moment for workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the longstanding practice of Garmon preemption. Yet, initial fears of a significant rollback of workers’ rights, driven by sensational headlines, were met with an unexpectedly narrow Court opinion. This Comment examines Glacier’s implications for Gar-mon preemption and the right to strike. It offers the historical background of the doctrine of labor law preemption before Glacier; presents a detailed analysis of Glacier itself, including its …

Legislative Reforms To End Lawfare By State And Local Prosecutors, Elizabeth Beske

Legislative Testimony & Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, "Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors," will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions.

Historical Tradition, The Second Amendment, And Marrying Gun Rights And Regulation: Examining The Proposals In Gavin Newsom's Twenty-Eighth Amendment And Their Place In Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Guy Cheatham

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In September 2017, Stephen Paddock checked into rooms 32-134 and 32- 135 at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. Both rooms looked over the Route 91 Festival in Las Vegas Village. Over the course of five days, Paddock brought twenty-two suitcases into his room: five on September 25th, seven on the 26th, two on the 28th, six on the 30th, and two on October 1st. On September 30th, Paddock placed “Do Not Disturb” signs on the doors of rooms 32-134 and 32-135. Paddock considered booking the high level suites for weeks; Google searches from May to September 2017 reveal …

Breaking Kayfabe, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The membership of the Supreme Court affects how it decides cases. This maxim is well accepted among the public. But it is exceedingly rare for Supreme Court opinions to acknowledge this fact, even when it provides the best explanation for the Court’s behavior. And in the unusual instance in which Supreme Court opinions do refer to changes in the Court’s membership, it is jarring. This Article explores two questions that flow from these uncontroversial facts. First, why does it happen so rarely? Second, why does it happen at all?

To answer these questions, the Article looks to an unusual source: …

The Inadequacy Of Perpetuating Vestiges Of Segregation In K-12 Curriculum: The Justiciability Of Reviewing Duties To Adequacy In Florida's Education Clause, Soumya Sreerama

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

Although the Supreme Court declared segregation the most abusive affront to education and ruled to eliminate vestiges of segregation “root and branch,” those same roots have grown unchecked to remain prominent today. One of the undercurrents of state-sponsored discrimination that has escaped desegregation remedies is the skewed, whitewashed curriculum that permeated K-12 classrooms in Jim Crow America. More troubling, is that those vestiges of an inadequately biased curriculum are still slithering in students’ courses today. Although student movements and education reformists have attempted to counter skewed curricula by supplementing them with separate ethnic studies courses, states like Florida recently passed …

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

The Primacy Method Of State Constitutional Decisionmaking: Interpreting The Maine Constitution, Glen S. Goodnough

Maine Law Review

The past fifteen years have witnessed the steady growth of both the theory and practice of state constitutional law. Initial inquiry focused on whether state supreme courts should provide their residents more expansive substantive and procedural rights under their state constitutions than required by United States Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Constitution. Given the plethora of state constitutional decisions expanding rights beyond the federally required minimum, or "floor," it is apparent that a large number of state supreme courts have settled the question of whether they will in fact interpret their state constitutions in such a manner. Nevertheless, lingering …

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 …

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

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proportionalities, Youngjae Lee

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

“Proportionality” is ubiquitous. The idea that punishment should be proportional to crime is familiar in criminal law and has a lengthy history. But that is not the only place where one encounters the concept of proportionality in law and ethics. The idea of proportionality is important also in the self-defense context, where the right to defend oneself with force is limited by the principle of proportionality. Proportionality plays a role in the context of war, especially in the idea that the military advantage one side may draw from an attack must not be excessive in relation to the loss of …

Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber

Notre Dame Law Review

The ministerial exception is a doctrine born out of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that shields many religious institutions’ employment decisions from review. While the ministerial exception does not extend to all employment decisions by, or employees of, religious institutions, it does confer broad—and absolute—protection. While less controversy surrounds whether the Constitution shields religious institutions’ employment decisions to at least some extent, much more debate surrounds the exception’s scope, and perhaps most critically, which employees fall under it. In other words, who is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception?

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article employs the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and litigation in its wake as the jumping off point to reconsider the connections between judges, the Constitution, and social movements. That movements influence constitutional law, and that judicial pronouncements in turn are reshaped by politics, is well-established. But, while these accounts of legal change depend upon judges to embrace movement ideas, less has been written about the conditions under which judicial entrenchment can be expected to take place. There may, in fact, be different types of judicial dispositions towards external political phenomena.

In this Article, …

Litigating Original Meaning From Heller To Rahimi: The Role Of Lawyering In The Confused Path Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Lawrence Rosenthal

American University Law Review

The Second Amendment is on a jurisprudential march. An individual right to “keep and bear arms” for purposes unrelated to militia or military service was not recognized until the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, applying what it took to be the original meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” found in the Second Amendment, in District of Columbia v. Heller. Subsequently, the Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, invalidated a statute requiring a permit to carry concealable firearms on a showing of particularized need. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, …

The Repeal Of Religious Accommodations -- A Constitutional Analysis, Ronald J. Colombo

American University Law Review

Under modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, the First Amendment ordinarily imposes no heightened standard of review upon neutral laws of general applicability that coincidentally burden the free exercise of religion. To relieve or minimize this burden, however, lawmakers are generally free to promulgate exemptions from, or accommodations to, such laws for the benefit of religious adherents. Such accommodations are common.

When a law is not neutral with respect to religion, or when the law is not generally applicable, then it will be subject to the exacting test of strict scrutiny to the extent that it burdens the free exercise of religion. …

The Roberts Court Revolution, Institutional Legitimacy, And The Promise (And Peril) Of Constitutional Statesmanship, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Our nation is in the middle of a constitutional revolution. While many periods of constitutional transformation have arisen out of large-scale political realignments, the Roberts Court Revolution is a product of our nation’s long (and unusual) political interregnum. Even as neither political party has managed to secure enough support to reconstruct our nation’s politics, the Roberts Court—with its young and ambitious conservative majority—has already moved quickly to reconsider key pillars of the existing constitutional regime. This represents a challenging moment for the Roberts Court and its institutional legitimacy. To counteract this danger, the Justices might return to an old idea—one …

Congressional Power To Institute A Wealth Tax, Will Clark

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Over the last few years, several high-profile politicians have pushed to impose a federal “wealth tax.” For example, a recent bill introduced in the Senate would create a two percent tax on the value of assets between fifty million and one billion dollars, plus a higher percentage on wealth valued over one billion dollars. The proponents of the tax argue that it would reduce the growing wealth inequality in the United States, while opponents say that it would disincentivize investment in the American economy.

Policy arguments, however, are only relevant if the federal government has the authority to institute such …

An Originalist Approach To Prospective Overruling, John O. Mcginnis, Michael Rappaport

Notre Dame Law Review

Originalism has become a dominant jurisprudential theory on the Supreme Court. But a large number of precedents are inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning and overturning them risks creating enormous disruption to the legal order. This article defends a prospective overruling approach that would harmonize precedent with originalism’s rise and reduce the disruption from overrulings. Under prospective overruling, the Court declares that an existing statute violates the original meaning but will continue to be enforced because declaring it unconstitutional would produce enormous costs; however, future statutes of this type will be voided as unconstitutional. Under our approach, the Court would …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Administrative And Federal Regulatory Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Andrew F. Popper

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Amici write to address the first question presented: whether Chevron should be overruled. Properly understood, it should not. Chevron has been much discussed but not always understood. On the one hand, courts have sometimes misapplied the doctrine or failed to understand its legal foundations. On the other, courts and commentators alike have criticized Chevron, often as a result of such aggressive applications. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify what Chevron does and does not entail, while reaffirming the essential role that judicial recognition of constitutionally delegated policymaking authority plays in federal statutory programs. Many of …

The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Equity’s Constitutional Source, Owen W. Gallogly argues that Article III is the source of a constitutional default rule for equitable remedies—specifically, that Article III’s vesting of the “judicial Power” “in Equity” empowers federal courts to afford the remedies traditionally afforded by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Founding, and to develop such remedies in an incremental fashion. This Response questions the current plausibility of locating such a default rule in Article III, since remedies having their source in Article III would be available in federal but not state courts and would apply to state-law …

Why Cost/Benefit Balancing Tests Don't Exist: How To Dispel A Delusion That Delays Justice For Immigrants, Joshua J. Schroeder

West Virginia Law Review

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified its earlier presumption that indefinite immigrant detention without bond hearings is unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis. If Zadvydas is a nullity, those who raise due process balancing tests during the post-removal-period in immigrant habeas review may need to find new grounds for review. However, since Boumediene v. Bush was decided in 2008, there are several reasons not to despair Zadvydas’s demise

.

For one, Zadvydas spoke to an extremely narrow subset of cases. It granted a concession under the Due Process Clause to immigrants detained beyond the statutory 90-day removal period. It …

America's Other Separation Of Powers Tradition, Jonathan L. Marshfield

UF Law Faculty Publications

As the Supreme Court returns many critical issues to the states, the structure of state government is increasingly significant to the American constitutional order. From redistricting to reproductive rights, battles are raging over which state institutions should decide these important issues. Yet there is surprisingly little scholarship dedicated to the separation of powers under state constitutions. Instead, state doctrine and commentary tend to mimic themes in federal constitutional law and parrot Madisonian ideas of constitutional design. On this view, the separation of powers is based on carefully balanced intra-government rivalries fueled by the private ambition of the officers that staff …

The Law Enforcement Lobby, Stephen Rushin, Zoe Robinson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The law enforcement lobby represents one of the most important and undertheorized barriers to criminal justice reform. We define the law enforcement lobby as the constellation of entrenched actors within the justice system—particularly police unions, correctional officer unions, and prosecutor associations—that exert an outsized role in policy development. The law enforcement lobby operates largely without coordinated opposition, resulting in capture of criminal justice policymaking and skewed policy outcomes that often institutionalize injustice and subordination. The strength of the law enforcement lobby also presents a challenge to the growing defunding and abolition movements. Nevertheless, the law enforcement lobby remains at the …

Reasonable Classification Versus Equality Under The Indian Constitution, Jahnavi Sindhu, Vikram Aditya Narayan

National Law School Journal

This article critiques the standard of review most prominently applied in cases involving claims of violations of Article 14 of the Constitution: the reasonable classification test. We argue that this test is woefully inadequate in appreciating and protecting the wide-ranging nature of the right to equality. Through an examination of the origins of the reasonable classification test, we demonstrate the weak justifications initially advanced by the Indian judiciary to import it from dated United States (US) case law. Further, we highlight the substantial weaknesses of the test and explain how it precludes the judiciary from safeguarding the content of substantive …

Common Good Gun Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.