Law and Politics Commons^™

How Should Congress Respond To Mcdonnell?, David Yassky, Kathleen Clark, Allen Dickerson, Jennifer Rodgers

Pace Law Review

Discussion of question of whether McDonnell was essentially right or wrong. Should Congress act to change the McDonnell rule? Should the Supreme Court reconsider it? What would be an alternative or a better way, if there is one, to approach the question of public corruption prosecution?

How Has Mcdonnell Affected Prosecutors’ Ability To Police Public Corruption? What Are Politicians And Lobbyists Allowed To Do, And What Are Prosecutors Able To Prosecute?, Vincent L. Briccetti, Amie Ely, Alexandra Shapiro, Dan Stein

Pace Law Review

The question posed to the panelists on the first panel is: How has McDonnell affected prosecutors’ ability to police public corruption? What can politicians and lobbyists do and what can prosecutors prosecute?

Primer, Samantha Conway, David Diab, Amanda Fiorilla, Eric Grossfeld

Pace Law Review

Discussion and history of public corruption statutes and the prosecution of public officials through McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).

Introduction, Mimi Rocah

Pace Law Review

On March 9, 2018, the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University hosted Public Corruption Prosecution After McDonnell, a symposium that brought together law enforcement, practitioners, academics and media that covers these cases to gain insight and input from these disparate groups. The Symposium convened three panels to discuss how McDonnell has affected prosecutors’ ability to police public corruption; to offer legislative responses to McDonnell; and to examine the inherently unique nature of public corruption prosecutions. A central aim of the day-long event was to simultaneously tackle these challenging issues while distilling complex legal analysis in a manner suitable …

The Paradox Of Christian-Based Political Advocacy: A Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne R. Barnes

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Professor Calhoun, in his Article around which this symposium is based, has asserted that it is permissible for citizens to publicly argue for laws or public policy solutions based on explicitly religious reasons. Calhoun candidly admits that he has “long grappled” with this question (as have I, though he for longer), and, in probably the biggest understatement in this entire symposium, notes that Professor Kent Greenawalt identified this as “a particularly significant, debatable, and highly complex problem.” Is it ever. I have a position that I will advance in this article, but I wish to acknowledge at the outset that …

America's Creed: The Inevitable, Sometimes Dangerous, Mixing Of Religion And Politics, David M. Smolin

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Political and philosophical theorists have often advocated for the exclusion of some or all religious perspectives from full participation in politics. Such approaches create criteria—such as public accessibility, public reason, or secular rationale—to legitimate such exclusion. During the 1990s I argued, as an evangelical Christian, against such exclusionary theories, defending the rights to full and equal political participation by evangelical Christians, traditionalist Roman Catholics, and any others who would be restricted by such criteria.

Book Review: Prosecuting Corporations For Genocide, Sarah Federman

Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal

No abstract provided.

Visibly (Un)Just: The Optics Of Grand Jury Secrecy And Police Violence, Nicole Smith Futrell

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Police violence has become more visible to the public through racial justice activism and social justice advocates’ use of technology. Yet, the heightened visibility of policing has had limited impact on transparency and accountability in the legal process, particularly when a grand jury is empaneled to determine whether to issue an indictment in a case of police violence. When a grand jury decides not to indict, the requirement of grand jury secrecy prevents public disclosure of the testimony, witnesses, and evidence presented to the grand jury. Grand jury secrecy leaves those who have seen and experienced the act of police …

Constitutional Coups As A Threat To Democratic Governance In Africa, John Mukum Mbaku

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The article examines the phenomenon of "constitutional coups" in Africa, where leaders manipulate constitutional provisions to extend their power, undermining democracy. It argues that while the African Union (AU) has adopted frameworks like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine to address unconstitutional regime changes, its response to constitutional coups has been inconsistent and ineffective. The analysis highlights the tension between state sovereignty and human rights, emphasizing the need for stronger AU mechanisms to prevent such abuses and promote democratic governance.

The Modern Public Square: Digital Viewpoint Discrimination In The Age Of @Realdonaldtrump, Jonathan Groffinan

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that official social media accounts used by political figures for public engagement should be classified as designated public forums, ensuring First Amendment protections against viewpoint discrimination. It contends that blocking users based on their viewpoints violates constitutional rights, as such accounts serve as modern public squares essential for free speech and open discourse.

Dads Are Parents, Too: Why Amending The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Is Necessary For Courts To Determine If A Parental Leave Policy Violates Title Vii, Krista Gay

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

To attract millennials desiring a work-life balance, large companies have begun to offer new parent leave to both male and female employees and commonly offer longer leave to women than men. Although a company may offer pregnancy disability leave to women without offering similar leave to men, if the company classifies the leave as parental bonding leave, it must be offered equally. If it is not, as highlighted by recent lawsuits against JP Morgan and Estée Lauder, a Title VII claim can arise. Historically, courts have had difficulty deciding if such a policy does in fact violate Title VII, because …

All The President's Privileges, Ann M. Murphy

Journal of Law and Policy

This article provides a historical perspective of the evidentiary privilege doctrines that are in play in the current Special Counsel investigation. New issues of waiver by tweet are addressed. It is well established that a sitting president is subject to judicial process in certain circumstances, and that President Trump and his close advisors have and will continue to claim one or both of these privileges. I predict that these privileges will be inapplicable, applicable but waived, or applicable but fall within the crimefraud exception to the privileges. The crime-fraud exception has never been raised in a Special Counsel investigation of …

After The Trump Era: A Constitutional Role Morality For Presidents And Members Of Congress, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States today, the behavior of the political branches is generally viewed as more damaging to the American constitutional system than is the behavior of the federal courts. Yet constitutional law scholarship continues to focus primarily on judges and judging. This Article suggests that such scholarship should develop for presidents and members of Congress what it has long advocated for judges: a role morality that imposes normative limits on the exercise of official discretion over and above strictly legal limits. The Article first grounds a role morality for federal elected officials in two purposes of the U.S. Constitution …

The Paradox Of Christian-Based Political Advocacy: A Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne Barnes

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Calhoun, in his Article around which this symposium is based, has asserted that it is permissible for citizens to publicly argue for laws or public policy solutions based on explicitly religious reasons. Calhoun candidly admits that he has “long grappled” with this question (as have I, though he for longer), and, in probably the biggest understatement in this entire symposium, notes that Professor Kent Greenawalt identified this as “a particularly significant, debatable, and highly complex problem.” Is it ever. I have a position that I will advance in this article, but I wish to acknowledge at the outset that …

Antitrust's Unconventional Politics, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Antitrust law stands at its most fluid and negotiable moment in a generation. The bipartisan consensus that antitrust should solely focus on economic efficiency and consumer welfare has quite suddenly come under attack from prominent voices calling for a dramatically enhanced role for antitrust law in mediating a variety of social, economic, and political friction points, including employment, wealth inequality, data privacy and security, and democratic values. To the bewilderment of many observers, the ascendant pressures for antitrust reforms are flowing from both wings of the political spectrum, throwing into confusion a conventional understanding that pro-antitrust sentiment tacked left and …

“Taking The Threat To American Democracy Seriously: The Truth/Justice/Democracy Initiative,”, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals

The Plot To Overthrow Genocide: State Laws Mandating Education About The Foulest Crime Of All

Marquette Law Review

This Article shines a light on a little noticed phenomenon in American law: the promulgation of ten state statutes and one state regulation, each requiring education about genocide in elementary and/or secondary schools. The mandates, adopted from 1989 through 2018, appear to be only the beginning inasmuch as in 2017 another nineteen states publicly pledged to pass such mandates as well.

The Article describes each of the existing mandates and compares them to each other, including an analysis of the laws’ respective strong and weak points. This exposition, of interest in itself, also sets the stage for proposals to improve …

Separation Of Church And State: Jefferson, Lincoln, And The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended To Separate Religion From Politics, Samuel W. Calhoun

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

This Essay argues that it’s perfectly fine for religious citizens to openly bring their faith-based values to public policy disputes. Part II demonstrates that the Founders, exemplified by Thomas Jefferson, never intended to separate religion from politics. Part III, focusing upon Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to slavery, shows that religion and politics have been continuously intermixed ever since the Founding. Part IV, emphasizing the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., argues that no other reasons justify barring faith-based arguments from the public square.

Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. More explicitly, he worries about “the status and integrity” of the Court if is seen as taking sides in politically charged controversies. Similarly, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts warned that the Court has a limited role in our constitutional scheme and must stay within it. To decide cases on the basis of policy and not law would compromise the Court’s legitimacy. This Essay is skeptical. For one, …

The Supreme Court And American Politics: Symposium Introduction, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Above Politics: Congress And The Supreme Court In 2017, Jason Mazzone

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. It traces congressional efforts to respond to statutory and constitutional rulings by the Court as well as steps to regulate the operations of the Court and the work of the Justices. Although in 2017 Republicans and Democrats introduced numerous bills directed at the Court, these bills were generally modest in scope and, even so, did …

What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used by the political right. Democrats, by contrast, focused primarily on case outcomes, complaining, for example, that Gorsuch favored “the big guy” over “the little guy” in cases he decided as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. This Article critiques the Democrats’ failure to discuss judicial process and to promote their own affirmative vision of the judiciary and the Constitution. A …

Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Specifically, Neil Gorsuch was the first “minority Justice,” receiving the support of senators who had collected nearly 20 million fewer votes than those in opposition (54,098,387 to 73,425,062). From there, the Article considers the significance this development, first by examining some of the foundational work of the regime politics …

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.

In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically …

Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This is a revised version of a Keynote Address delivered at “The Supreme Court and American Politics,” a symposium held October 17, 2017 at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. It focuses on Justice Scalia’s contradictory views on self-dealing and incumbency protection across a range of cases, comparing campaign finance on the one hand to partisan gerrymandering, voter identification laws, political patronage, and ballot access rules on the other. …

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …

The Consequences Of Citizens United: What Do The Lawyers Say?, Ann Southworth

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. It shows that the lawyers generally agree about the ruling’s direct consequences but strongly disagree about whether those consequences are good or bad for the country and what lessons the public should draw. This Essay also explores the competing frames that these lawyers bring to questions about money in politics and their competing perspectives about government and where …

Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon

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

Abstract forthcoming

Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo

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

Abstract forthcoming

Avian Jurisprudence And The Protection Of Migratory Birds In North America, Marshall A. Bowen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming