Rule of Law Commons^™

The Military Officer's Oath To Disobey Lawful But Unethical Orders, Joshua Braver

Northwestern University Law Review

How should a military officer respond to a lawful yet unethical order, unethical in the sense that it conflicts with their professional responsibilities? Army culture, scholarship, and doctrine regard officers as professionals, akin to doctors and lawyers, with expertise in the management of violence and a shared commitment to an ethical code. This code demands obedience to lawful orders to uphold civilian control of the military. But to protect against civilian misuse of the military, the code requires disobedience to unethical orders. Faced with a lawful but unethical order, the military officer is mired in a contradiction in which their …

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 …

First Amendment Exceptions To Otherwise Valid Laws: A Doctrinal And Meta-Doctrinal Perspective, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

When do the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses require exceptions to generally valid laws? Recently, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of such exceptions, which excuse some speakers and religiously motivated actors from legal duties that apply to others, including in prominent cases under antidiscrimination statutes and emergency pandemic regulations. By contrast, other landmark cases––such as United States v. O’Brien and Employment Division v. Smith—insist that First Amendment exceptions should be rare.

In analyzing the fraught and confusing issues that surround First Amendment exceptions, this Article makes four main contributions. First, it conceptualizes claims to …

Nonparty Protective Relief In The Early Republic: Judicial Power To Annul Letters Patent, James E. Pfander, Mary E. Zakowski

Northwestern University Law Review

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or nonparty protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of nonparties. As a result, the story of nonparty protective relief has not yet been fully told.

This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all. Some familiar examples …

Malapportionment: A Murder Mystery, Daniel Wodak

Northwestern University Law Review

Malapportionment—electoral districts with divergent ratios of people to representation—was ruled to be unconstitutional in a widely venerated series of cases before the Warren Court. Those cases held that a principle of political equality, one person, one vote, is required by the Constitution. But what is the content of that principle? Many Justices and commentators declare that it is vague, empty, circular, or meaningless. This creates a murder mystery. Malapportionment was killed, but by what exactly? This Article seeks an answer by focusing on the Supreme Court’s commitments about the scope and strictness of one person, one vote: it …

Promising The First Amendment: (De)Regulating Speech In Higher Education, Max M. Schanzenbach, Kimberly A. Yuracko

Northwestern University Law Review

The war between Hamas and Israel has caused havoc in higher education. Amid student unrest, alumni pressure, congressional hearings, civil rights investigations, and student lawsuits, universities stand at a crossroads. The current situation, in which most private universities unevenly regulate student speech under ambiguous student codes, is not sustainable politically or legally. A tsunami of litigation and regulatory actions has already begun. One increasingly favored response is for private universities to more vigorously enforce existing codes or expand their scope. An alternative is for private universities to deregulate student expression and commit by contract to the First Amendment. This Article …

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 …

Generative Suspicion And The Risks Of Ai-Assisted Police Reports, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Northwestern University Law Review

Police reports play a central role in the criminal justice system. Many times, police reports exist as the only official memorialization of what happened during an incident, shaping probable cause determinations, pretrial detention decisions, motions to suppress, plea bargains, and trial strategy. For over a century, human police officers wrote the factual narratives that shaped the trajectory of individual cases and organized the entire legal system.

This practice is about to change with the creation of AI-assisted police reports. Today, with the click of a button, large language models (LLMs), a type of generative AI using predictive text capabilities, can …

Standing On Stare Decisis After Students For Fair Admissions, Areeb Asif, Lindsey Roloff

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court recognized nearly half a century ago in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that “the ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.” Nevertheless, the Court seriously undercut efforts to bring such a future to life by striking down race-conscious admissions programs in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (collectively SFFA). Though SFFA’s binding effect is limited to educational institutions, …

Crisis Convergence, Sarah Medina Camiscoli

Northwestern University Law Review

Progressive jurists and legal scholars have called the Supreme Court’s doctrine of colorblind constitutionalism that dismantled affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard (SFFA) a crisis for constitutional democracy. However, scholars have not yet tended to students, particularly students mobilized for racial justice, to understand their interpretation of this race-evasive ideology and what insights those mobilized students might offer in this pivotal moment. Given the fact that a small coalition of dissenting conservative jurists, scholars, and mobilized students—the Federalist Society—spent decades crafting the doctrine, scholarship, and resources that drive colorblind constitutionalism …

Constitutional Futurisms, Jeremiah Chin

Northwestern University Law Review

How do we reckon with the past? The Supreme Court’s recent embrace of originalism as a mode of constitutional analysis relies almost exclusively on a view of history and tradition that would bind us to an understanding of principles and ideals that legitimized the exclusion of minority voices. Cases such as New York State Pistol and Rifle Ass'n v. Bruen use flavors of originalism as a framework to define rights and governmental powers through their historical antecedents, but this broad standard of interpretation is notably absent in the Court’s recent discussions of histories and traditions of racism in the United …

Climate Exceptionalism In Court, Zachary D. Clopton, David A. Dana

Northwestern University Law Review

Across a range of cases, fossil fuel companies, government actors, and some judges have conceded that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon, only to argue that its exceptional nature is a reason to keep climate change out of court. These parties and judges thus seek to avoid the adjudication of climate cases on the merits, even when the neutral application of existing law would provide for jurisdiction in these cases. We term this phenomenon “climate jurisdiction exceptionalism.”

This Article provides a comprehensive account of climate jurisdiction exceptionalism, focusing on two main threads: Article III standing and state court jurisdiction. First, …

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 …

Obstructing Precedent, Bill Watson

Northwestern University Law Review

Critics of the Supreme Court sometimes accuse the Justices of disrespecting or being unfaithful to precedent—of undermining certain precedents while leaving them formally in place. Yet it remains unclear what exactly these criticisms mean or why they point to anything objectionable. This Article proposes that critics are often drawing attention to a particular practice: obstructing precedent. A better grasp of what obstructing precedent is and when it is legitimate is important to understanding the Roberts Court’s treatment of precedent in a range of cases.

A court obstructs precedent when it refuses to cooperate with its prior self in building a …

Prosecutorial Data Transparency And Data Justice, Caitlin Glass, Kat M. Albrecht, Perry Moriearty

Northwestern University Law Review

The U.S. criminal legal system is notoriously racialized. Though Black and Latinx people make up less than 30% of U.S. residents, they constitute more than 50% of the nearly two million people currently in U.S. prisons and jails. For decades, research has indicated that one group of decision-makers has had an outsized influence on these numbers: prosecutors. From whom to charge to what sentences to recommend, no actor plays a greater role in determining who goes to prison in this country. Highly subjective and lacking in formal guidance and accountability, prosecutorial decisions are especially vulnerable to racial bias. They are …

Anglo-Saxon Res Judicata Culture For Civil Law Systems, Cesare Cavallini

Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business

One traditional aspect distinguishing the common law system from the civil law one lies in the perceived disparities in the inspiration of the law-making process. The Anglo-Saxon system typically grounds its rules in explicit and discernible policies spanning social, anthropological, and economic realms directly relevant to the circumstances. In contrast, the civil law tradition frequently necessitates a fixed conceptual framework, sometimes detached from the practical needs of society. Or, at least, this dynamic persisted until recent changes prompted by the “doing business” model, which has timidly ascended to the forefront of the State agenda, particularly across Europe, notably in Italy. …

Racism As A Threat To Financial Stability, Cary Martin Shelby

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article draws from several theoretical frameworks such as critical race theory, law and economics, and rule of law conceptions to argue that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) should formally recognize racism as a threat to financial stability due to its interconnectedness with recent and projected systemic disruptions. This Article begins by first introducing a novel model created by the author through which to dissect this claim. This “Systemic Disruption Model” provides a theoretical depiction of how racism drives every phase along the life-cycle continuum of a systemic disruption.

First, with respect to the Model’s “Introduction” phase, this Article …

Testing Transparency, Brigham Daniels, Mark Buntaine, Tanner Bangerter

Northwestern University Law Review

In modern democracies, governmental transparency is thought to have great value. When it comes to addressing administrative corruption and mismanagement, many would agree with Justice Brandeis’s observation that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Beyond this, many credit transparency with enabling meaningful citizen participation.

But even though transparency appears highly correlated with successful governance in developed democracies, assumptions about administrative transparency have remained empirically untested. Testing effects of transparency would prove particularly helpful in developing democracies where transparency norms have not taken hold or only have done so slowly. In these contexts, does administrative transparency really create the sorts of benefits …

Why Consumer Defendants Lump It, Emily S. Taylor Poppe

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

The Modern Treaty-Executing Power: Constitutional Complexities In Contemporary Global Governance, Carlo Felizardo

Northwestern University Law Review

Treaties have evolved significantly since the ratification of the United States Constitution, leading to uncertainty as to the constitutional limits on their domestic execution. This Note adapts existing constitutional doctrine on treaty execution to two distinct complications arising in the contemporary treaty regime. First, voluntary treaties imposing aspirational obligations on signatories raise the issue of the extent of obligations that Congress may domestically enforce by federal statute. Second, originating treaties which create international organizations and authorize them to adopt rule- and adjudication-type post-treaty pronouncements bring up a question of when, if ever, to incorporate those pronouncements into U.S. law, and …

Gatekeeping Science: Using The Structure Of Scientific Research To Distinguish Between Admissibility And Weight In Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, John Monahan

Northwestern University Law Review

Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determines the admissibility of evidence, and the jury, which gauges its weight. In most evidentiary contexts, such as those involving hearsay and character, threshold admissibility obligations are clear and relatively uncontroversial. The same is not true for scientific evidence. The complex nature of scientific inference, and in particular the challenges of reasoning from group data to individual cases, has bedeviled courts. As a result, courts vary considerably on how they define the judge’s gatekeeping task under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents.

This …

The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler

Northwestern University Law Review

It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be “rewriting” the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.

This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but …

Qualified Immunity, Constitutional Stagnation, And The Global War On Terror, Sarah L. Lochner

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.